Page Range | 21707-21840 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
83 FR 21839 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Actions of the Government of Syria | |
83 FR 21768 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
83 FR 21812 - Imposition of Nonproliferation Measures Against Foreign Persons, Including a Ban on U.S. Government Procurement | |
83 FR 21786 - Accreditation and Approval of AmSpec LLC (Ferndale, WA) as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory | |
83 FR 21787 - Accreditation and Approval of SGS North America, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory | |
83 FR 21786 - Accreditation and Approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory | |
83 FR 21790 - Filing of Plats of Survey: Idaho | |
83 FR 21791 - Outer Continental Shelf, Alaska OCS Region, Beaufort Sea, Proposed Oil and Gas Lease Sale for 2019 | |
83 FR 21834 - Schedules of Controlled Substances: Extension of Temporary Placement of beta-Hydroxythiofentanyl in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act | |
83 FR 21826 - Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of beta-Hydroxythiofentanyl Into Schedule I | |
83 FR 21789 - Announcement of the Housing Counseling Federal Advisory Committee Notice of Public Meeting | |
83 FR 21709 - Right-of-Way and Real Estate; Correction | |
83 FR 21822 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
83 FR 21820 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
83 FR 21821 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
83 FR 21747 - Notification of Open Commission Meeting | |
83 FR 21773 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
83 FR 21722 - Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment | |
83 FR 21723 - Rural Call Completion | |
83 FR 21815 - Fifty First RTCA SC-206 Aeronautical Information and Meteorological Data Link Services (AIS) Plenary | |
83 FR 21813 - Notice of Continuation and Request for Nominations for the Industry Trade Advisory Committees | |
83 FR 21769 - Notice of Commission Staff Attendance | |
83 FR 21770 - Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene: Davis and Weber Counties Canal Company | |
83 FR 21771 - Davis and Weber Counties Canal Company; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene | |
83 FR 21794 - Advisory Committee for Cyberinfrastructure; Notice of Meeting | |
83 FR 21793 - Advisory Committee for Computer and Information Science and Engineering; Notice of Meeting | |
83 FR 21765 - Marine Mammals and Endangered Species | |
83 FR 21717 - Safety Zone; Oregon Inlet, Dare County, NC | |
83 FR 21738 - 2018 Annual Determination To Implement the Sea Turtle Observer Requirement | |
83 FR 21765 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
83 FR 21768 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
83 FR 21766 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
83 FR 21764 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
83 FR 21767 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
83 FR 21767 - Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
83 FR 21791 - Notice of Public Meeting: Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Advisory Council | |
83 FR 21764 - Large Residential Washers From Mexico: Final Results of the Expedited First Five-Year Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order | |
83 FR 21785 - Meeting of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee | |
83 FR 21788 - The President's National Infrastructure Advisory Council | |
83 FR 21744 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Commercial Aggregated Large Coastal Shark and Hammerhead Shark Management Groups Retention Limit Adjustment | |
83 FR 21774 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
83 FR 21746 - Notice of Temporary Freeze on New or Modified Earth Station Applications in the 3.7-4.2 GHz Band; 90-Day Window for Filing Applications Currently Operating in 3.7-4.2 GHz Band | |
83 FR 21711 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Reynolds Channel, Nassau County, NY | |
83 FR 21769 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Application Package for TRIO Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs | |
83 FR 21768 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
83 FR 21710 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sacramento River, Sacramento, CA | |
83 FR 21711 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sacramento River, Isleton, CA | |
83 FR 21773 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
83 FR 21714 - Safety Zone; Grosse Pointe Farms Fireworks, Lake St. Clair, Grosse Pointe Farms, MI | |
83 FR 21774 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
83 FR 21794 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, Consisting to Amendments to Rule G-21, on Advertising, Proposed New Rule G-40, on Advertising by Municipal Advisors, and a Technical Amendment to Rule G-42, on Duties of Non-Solicitor Municipal Advisors | |
83 FR 21716 - Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Detroit Zone | |
83 FR 21781 - Framework for Assessment of Drug-Drug Interactions for Therapeutic Proteins; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Information and Comments | |
83 FR 21782 - S3A Guidance: Note for Guidance on Toxicokinetics: The Assessment of Systemic Exposure in Toxicity Studies: Focus on Microsampling-Questions and Answers; International Council for Harmonisation; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
83 FR 21784 - Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections: Developing Drugs for Treatment; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
83 FR 21788 - Intent To Request Revision From OMB of One Current Public Collection of Information: TSA Claims Application | |
83 FR 21808 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Operation of Its Flexible Exchange Options Pilot Program | |
83 FR 21794 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Continue Listing and Trading Shares of the PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E | |
83 FR 21792 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
83 FR 21762 - Ketchikan Resource Advisory Committee | |
83 FR 21712 - Safety Zone; Ohio River Mile Marker 27.8 to Mile Marker 28.2, Vanport, PA | |
83 FR 21790 - Land Acquisitions; the Muscogee (Creek) Nation | |
83 FR 21776 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
83 FR 21779 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
83 FR 21778 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
83 FR 21762 - Strategic Economic and Community Development-Reservation of Fiscal Year 2018 Program Funds | |
83 FR 21811 - Rescission of Social Security Rulings Related to Special Payments at Age 72 | |
83 FR 21707 - Removal of Special Payments at Age 72 | |
83 FR 21815 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
83 FR 21748 - International Fisheries; Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species; Fishing Limits in Purse Seine and Longline Fisheries, Restrictions on the Use of Fish Aggregating Devices in Purse Seine Fisheries, and Transshipment Prohibitions | |
83 FR 21772 - Allocations of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Allowances From New Unit Set-Asides for 2018 Control Periods | |
83 FR 21719 - Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4 (Visibility) for the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 |
Forest Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Housing Service
Rural Utilities Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Coast Guard
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Social Security Administration.
Final rule.
We are removing from the Code of Federal Regulations our “Special Payments at Age 72” rules because they are obsolete. We are removing these rules in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 13777.
Effective May 10, 2018.
Linda Appler, Social Security Administration, 410-966-6760 or
We are removing our rules, “Special Payments at Age 72,” in accordance with E.O. 13777 (“Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda”).
We are removing these rules from the CFR because they are obsolete and no longer necessary. We are also revising other sections in the CFR to remove references to special age 72 payments. There are no individuals who currently receive special age 72 payments, and no individuals will become entitled to these payments in the future.
We are also rescinding several Social Security Rulings (SSR) that relate to special age 72 payments because those SSRs are also obsolete. We are rescinding, under a separate Notice published concurrently with this final rule, the following SSRs:
• SSR 67-28: Section 228(c)(1) and (h)(2).—Special Age 72 Payments For Uninsured Individuals—Reduction Because Of Eligibility For Governmental Pension;
• SSR 68-13: Sections 228(c)(1) and 228(h)(2).—Special Age 72 Payments—Governmental Pension System—Teachers' Retirement Fund;
• SSR 68-36: Section 228(c) and 228(h)(2).—Special Age 72 Payment—Reduction Because Of Eligibility For Veterans' Administration Pension;
• SSR 68-37: Section 228(c) and (h).—Special Age 72 Payment—Eligibility For Teacher's Annuity Purchased From Personal Funds Not Cause For Offset;
• SSR 68-52: Sections 228(c)(1), 228(h)(2) and (3).—Special Age 72 Payments For Uninsured Individual—Reduction Due To Commutation Of Periodic Pension;
• SSR 68-78: Sections 228(c)(1) and (h)(2).—Special Age 72 Payments For Uninsured Individuals—Reduction Because Of Eligibility For Governmental Pension;
• SSR 70-23c: Section 228(c).—Special Age 72 Payments—Effect On Claimant's Eligibility Where Application Not Filed By Spouse Who Is Eligible For Periodic Benefit Under Governmental Pension System;
• SSR 72-27: Sections 228 (of Social Security Act) and 103 of Social Security Amendments of 1965.—Special Age 72 and Hospital Insurance Benefits—5 Years Continuous Residence Requirement; and
• SSR 74-27c: Sections 205(g), 228(a) and (e) (42 U.S.C. 405(g), 428(a), and 428(e)).—Special Age 72 Payments—Application and Residence Requirements—Constitutionally [
We follow the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking procedures specified in 5 U.S.C. 553 when we develop regulations. Generally, the APA requires that an agency provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing a final rule. The APA provides exceptions to its notice and public comment procedures when an agency finds there is good cause for dispensing with such procedures because they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.
We find that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to issue this regulatory change as a final rule without prior public comment. We find that prior public comment is unnecessary because this final rule only removes from the Code of Federal Regulations obsolete and unnecessary rules that do not affect any living beneficiaries.
In addition, we find good cause for dispensing with the 30-day delay in the effective date of this rule provided for in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). For the reasons stated above, we find it unnecessary to delay the effective date of the changes we are making in this final rule. Accordingly, we are making them effective upon publication.
We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that this final rule does not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563. Thus, OMB did not review the final rule.
We certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule affects individuals only. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.
This final rule does not create any new or affect any existing collections and, therefore, does not require OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Administrative practice and procedure, Blind, Disability benefits, Old-age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social Security.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, we amend 20 CFR chapter III part 404, Subparts A, B, C, D, E, and G as set forth below:
Secs. 203, 205(a), 216(j), and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403, 405(a), 416(j), and 902(a)(5)) and 48 U.S.C. 1801.
(c) * * *
(2)
Secs. 205(a), 212, 213, 214, 216, 217, 223, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(a), 412, 413, 414, 416, 417, 423, and 902(a)(5)).
(d) * * *
(1)* * *
(ii) If you file an application in June 1992 or later and you are not entitled to a benefit under section 227 of the Act in the month the application is made, we may consider you to have at least one QC before 1951 if you have $400 or more total wages before 1951, as defined in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, provided that the number of QCs credited to you under this paragraph plus the number of QCs credited to you for periods after 1950 make you fully insured.
Secs. 202(a), 205(a), 215, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(a), 405(a), 415, and 902(a)(5)).
(b) * * *
(1) To compute the additional increase for all individuals and for maximum benefits payable to a family, we begin with the year in which the insured individual became eligible for old-age or disability benefits to which he or she is currently entitled, or died before becoming eligible.
Secs. 202, 203(a) and (b), 205(a), 216, 223, 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402, 403(a) and (b), 405(a), 416, 423, 425, and 902(a)(5)).
The revisions read as follows:
(b)
(c)
(e)
Secs. 202, 203, 204(a) and (e), 205(a) and (c), 216(l), 222(c), 223(e), 224, 225, 702(a)(5), and 1129A of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402, 403, 404(a) and (e), 405(a) and (c), 416(l), 422(c), 423(e), 424a, 425, 902(a)(5), and 1320a-8a); 48 U.S.C. 1801.
Under certain conditions, the amount of a monthly insurance benefit or the lump-sum death payment as calculated under the pertinent provisions of sections 202 and 203 of the Act (including reduction for age under
(a)
Secs. 202(i), (j), (o), (p), and (r), 205(a), 216(i)(2), 223(b), 228(a), and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(i), (j), (o), (p), and (r), 405(a), 416(i)(2), 423(b), 428(a), and 902(a)(5)).
The revision reads as follows:
(a)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Correcting amendment.
This rule makes a technical correction to the regulations concerning right-of-way and real estate. The amendment contained herein makes no substantive change to the FHWA regulations, policies, or procedures. This rule updates the language to move a misplaced word.
This rule is effective June 11, 2018.
Arnold Feldman, Office of Real Estate Services, (202) 366-2028,
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's home page at:
This rule makes a technical correction to the regulations that govern Direct Federal Acquisition to correct a misplaced word in the first sentence of 23 CFR 710.603(a). The preamble to the Final Rule (81 FR 57716, August 23, 2016) discusses this sentence and makes clear that no changes would be made to the sentence proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 69998, November 24, 2014). However, the regulatory text adopted switches the order of the words in the sentence. This action corrects the regulatory text to reduce confusion and reflect the Agency's intended language. Specifically, the word “not” is relocated so that the current relevant portion of language is changed from “[t]he provisions of this paragraph may not be applied to any real property that is owned by the United States” to read “[t]he provisions of this paragraph may be applied to any real property that is not owned by the United States.”
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), an agency may waive the normal notice and comment requirements if it finds, for good cause, that they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. The FHWA finds that notice and comment for this rule is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest because it will have no substantive impact, is technical in nature, and relates only to management, organization, procedure, and practice. The FHWA does not anticipate receiving meaningful comments on it. States, local governments, and their consultants rely upon the regulations corrected by this action. This correction will reduce confusion for these entities and should not be unnecessarily delayed. Accordingly, for the reasons listed above, the agencies find good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) to waive notice and opportunity for comment.
The FHWA has determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or significant within the meaning of the U.S. Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. It is anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking will be minimal. This rule only entails a minor correction that will not in any way alter the regulatory effect of 23 CFR part 710. Thus, this final rule will not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes will not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and will not materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. This action complies with E.O.s 12866, 13563, and 13771 to improve regulation.
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 60l-612) FHWA has evaluated the effects of this action on small entities and have determined that the action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule will not make any substantive changes to our regulations or in the way that our regulations affect small entities; it merely corrects technical errors. For this reason, FHWA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule does not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). This rule does not impose any requirements on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector and, thus, will not require those entities to expend any funds.
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, and FHWA has determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this action does not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.
The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to these programs.
This action does not create any new information collection requirements for which a Paperwork Reduction Act submission to the Office of Management and Budget would be needed under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
The FHWA 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 will not have any effect on the quality of the environment.
The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175, dated November 6, 2000, and concluded that this rule will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal government; and will not preempt Tribal law. There are no requirements set forth in this rule that directly affect one or more Indian Tribes. Therefore, a Tribal summary impact statement is not required.
This rule 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.
Under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks, this final rule is not economically significant and does not involve an environmental risk to health and safety that may disproportionally affect children.
This final rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This final rule has been analyzed under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. The FHWA has determined that it is not a significant energy action under that order because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and this final rule is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
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 twice each year. The RINs contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
Grant programs—transportation, Highways and roads, Real property acquisition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rights-of-way.
In consideration of the foregoing, 23 CFR part 710 is amended as set forth below.
Secs. 1302 and 1321, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405. Sec. 1307, Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107; 23 U.S.C. 101(a), 107, 108, 111, 114, 133, 142(f), 156, 204, 210, 308, 315, 317, and 323; 42 U.S.C. 2000d
(a) The provisions of this paragraph may be applied to any real property that is not owned by the United States and is needed in connection with a project for the construction, reconstruction, or improvement of any section of the Interstate System or for a Defense Access Road project under 23 U.S.C. 210, if the SDOT is unable to acquire the required ROW or is unable to obtain possession with sufficient promptness. * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Tower Drawbridge across the Sacramento River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento, CA. The deviation is necessary to allow participants from the AMGEN Tour of California to cross the drawspan safely and without interruption. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the deviation period.
This deviation is effective from 10 a.m. through 2 p.m. on May 19, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0392, is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Carl T. Hausner, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510-437-3516; email
The California Department of Transportation has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Tower Drawbridge over the Sacramento River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw operates as required by 33 CFR 117.189(a). Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.
The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 10 a.m. through 10:30 a.m. and from 1 p.m. through 2 p.m. on May 19, 2018, to allow the participants from the AMGEN Tour of California to cross the drawspan safely and without interruption. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. In the event of an emergency, the draw can open on signal if at least one-hour notice is given to the bridge operator. There are no immediate alternate routes for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Isleton Drawbridge across the Sacramento River, mile 18.7, at Isleton, CA. The deviation is necessary to allow participants from the AMGEN Tour of California to cross the drawspan safely and without interruption. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the deviation period.
This deviation is effective from 12 p.m. through 1 p.m. on May 17, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0393, is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Carl T. Hausner, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510-437-3516, email
The California Department of Transportation has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Isleton Drawbridge, mile 18.7, over the Sacramento River, at Isleton, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 15 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw operates as required by 33 CFR 117.189(a). Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.
The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 12 p.m. through 1 p.m. on May 17, 2018, to allow the participants from the AMGEN Tour of California to cross the drawspan safely and without interruption. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Long Beach Bridge across Reynolds Channel, mile 4.7, at Nassau County, New York. This deviation is necessary in order to facilitate the “Annual Fireworks Display” and allows the bridge to remain in the closed position.
This deviation is effective from 9:30 p.m. July 6, 2018 to 10:30 p.m. on July 8, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0289, is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Stephanie Lopez, Bridge Management Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 212-514-4335, email
The Bridge owner, Nassau County Department of Public Works, requested this temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate the “Annual Fireworks Display.”
The Long Beach Bridge across Reynolds Channel, mile 4.7, has a vertical clearance of 20 feet at mean high water and 24 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulation is listed at 33 CFR 117.799(g).
The temporary deviation will allow the Long Beach Bridge to remain closed for one hour from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 6, 2018. Reynolds Channel is transited by seasonal recreational vessels and commercial vessels. Coordination with Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound has indicated no mariner objections to the proposed short-term closure of the draw.
Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies. There is no alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for all navigable waters of the Ohio River from mile marker 27.8 to mile marker 28.2 near the Vanport Highway Bridge. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by a cargo movement near the Vanport Highway Bridge in Vanport, PA. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh or a designated representative.
This rule is effective without actual notice from May 10, 2018 until 6 p.m. on May 11, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 8 a.m. on May 6, 2018 until May 10, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Jennifer Haggins, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard, at telephone 412-221-0807, email
On May 3, 2018, Bechtel notified the Coast Guard that a cargo movement in the vicinity of the Vanport Highway Bridge could create potential hazards for the bridge's structural integrity. 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)(3)(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 did not receive notice of this cargo operation until May 3, 2018. This safety zone must be established by May 6, 2018, and we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing this rule. The NPRM process would delay the establishment of the safety zone until after the date of the cargo operation and compromise public safety.
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 Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with a cargo movement operation that will take place during the week of May 6, 2018 will be a safety concern for anyone within a half-mile stretch of the Ohio River. This rule is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters before, during, and after the cargo movement.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 8 a.m. on May 6, 2018 through 6 p.m. on May 11, 2018 for all navigable waters of the Ohio River from mile marker 27.8 to mile marker 28.2. Entry into this safety zone during the enforcement period is prohibited, unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. Subject to the cargo delivery intervals and potential inclement weather, the period of
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-year of the safety zone. This safety zone will be enforced for a period of four hours on one day on less than a half mile of the Ohio River. 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 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such 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 determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that prohibits entry on a half-mile stretch of the Ohio River for 4 hours on one day during the week from May 6, 2018 through May 11, 2018. 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
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
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) Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67.
(3) All 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 the designated representative.
(e)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 560-foot radius of a portion of Lake St. Clair, Grosse Pointe Farms, MI. This zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from potential hazards associated with the Grosse Pointe Farms Fireworks.
This temporary final rule is effective from 10 p.m. on June 30, 2018 through 11 p.m. on July 1, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email Tracy Girard, Prevention Department, Sector Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone 313-568-9564, or 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 doing so would be impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive the final details of this fireworks display in time to publish an NPRM. As such, it is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that potential hazard associated with fireworks from 10 p.m. on June 30, 2018 through 11 p.m. on July 1, 2018 will be a safety concern to anyone within a 560-foot radius of the launch site. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks are being displayed.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 10 p.m. on June 30, 2018 through 11 p.m. on July 1, 2018. The safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable
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-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a small designated area of Lake St. Clair from 10 p.m. on June 30, 2018 through 11 p.m. on July 1, 2018. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such 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 determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that will be enforced for one hour and will prohibit entry into a designated area. 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)
(2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or his on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of COTP is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer or a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Detroit to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators shall contact the COTP or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to enter or operate within the safety zone. The COTP or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at (313) 568-9464. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or his on-scene representative.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce various safety zones for annual marine events in the Captain of the Port Detroit zone from 8:30 p.m. on May 27, 2018 through 10:30 p.m. on September 2, 2018. Enforcement of these zones is necessary and intended to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after these fireworks events. During the aforementioned period, the Coast Guard will enforce restrictions upon, and control movement of, vessels in a specified area immediately prior to, during, and immediately after fireworks events. During each enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the respective safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.941 will be enforced at various dates and times between 8:30 p.m. on May 27, 2018 through 10:30 p.m. on September 2, 2018.
If you have questions on this document, call or email Tracy Girard, Prevention, Sector Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone (313) 568-9564, or email
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.941, Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Detroit Zone, at the following dates and times for the following events:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
Under the provisions of § 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these safety zones during the enforcement period is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative. Vessels that wish to transit through the safety zones may request permission from the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain of Port before transits will be authorized. Approvals will be granted on a case by case basis. The Captain of the Port may be contacted via U.S. Coast Guard Sector Detroit on channel 16, VHF-FM or by calling (313)568-9564. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via Local Notice to Mariners and VHF radio broadcasts that the regulation is in effect.
This document is issued under authority of § 165.941 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). If the Captain of the Port determines that any of these safety zones need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this document, he may suspend such enforcement and notify the public of the suspension via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is re-establishing and extending a temporary final rule that creates a temporary safety zone on the waters of Oregon in Dare County, NC. The duration of this safety zone is extended through June 15, 2018. This safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from the hazards associated with installing the navigation span and will restrict vessel traffic from the bridge's navigation span as it is under construction by preventing vessel traffic on a portion of Oregon Inlet. Entry of vessels or persons into this safety zone is prohibited.
This rule is effective without actual notice from May 10, 2018 until June 15, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from May 4, 2018, until May 10, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Matthew Tyson, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector North Carolina, Wilmington, NC; telephone: (910) 772-2221, email:
On October 10, 2017, the North Carolina Department of Transportation notified the Coast Guard that they
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule to re-establish and extend the duration of the temporary safety zone 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 notification of the need to extend the safety zone was not given to the Coast Guard until April 26, 2018. It is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to publish an NPRM because we must extend the safety zone immediately through June 15, 2018, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters in Oregon Inlet during this construction phase.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP North Carolina has determined that potential safety hazards associated with the construction will be a concern for anyone transiting the Oregon Inlet navigation channel. The purpose of this rule is to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters in Oregon Inlet during this construction phase.
This rule re-establishes and extends the effective dates of the rule, published in 83 FR 2910, by 40 days making it effective through June 15, 2018. Construction is expected to take place on 33 separate days during this construction period. The safety zone will be active for two hours each day, with the exact times announced via Broadcast Notices to Mariners at least 48 hours prior to enforcement. The safety zone will include all navigable waters of Oregon Inlet from approximate position 35°46′23″ N, 75°32′18″ W, thence southeast to 35°46′18″ N, 75°32′12″ W, thence southwest to 35°46′16″ N, 75°32′16″ W, thence northwest to 35°46′20″ N, 75°32′23″ W, thence northeast back to the point of origin, (NAD 1983). This zone is intended to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters in Oregon Inlet during this construction phase. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone during the designated times.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the proposed safety zone. Vessel traffic will not be allowed to enter or transit a portion of Oregon Inlet during specific two hour periods on 33 separate days from January 29 through June 15, 2018. The specific two hour period for each work day will be broadcasted at least 48 hours in advance and vessels will be able to transit Oregon Inlet at all other times. The Coast Guard will issue a Local Notice to Mariners and transmit a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 regarding the safety zone. This portion of Oregon Inlet has been determined to be a medium to low traffic area at this time of the year. This rule does not allow vessels to request permission to enter the safety zone covering a portion of the Oregon Inlet navigation channel during the designated times.
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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you
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, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting for two hours on 33 separate days that would prohibit entry into a portion of Oregon Inlet for bridge construction. 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)
(2) With the exception of construction crews, entry into or remaining in this safety zone is prohibited.
(3) All vessels within this safety zone when this section becomes effective must depart the zone immediately.
(4) The Captain of the Port, North Carolina can be reached through the Coast Guard Sector North Carolina Command Duty Officer, Wilmington, North Carolina at telephone number 910-343-3882.
(5) The Coast Guard and designated security vessels enforcing the safety zone can be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13 (165.65 MHz) and channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
(d)
(e)
(f)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking the following five actions: Approving the portion of Ohio's November 30, 2016 State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal seeking to change from reliance on the
This final rule is effective on June 11, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0759. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Michelle Becker, Life Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-3901,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
Ohio submitted infrastructure SIPs for the following NAAQS: 2006 24-hour PM
Ohio has corrected the deficiencies that led to EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of the State's regional haze SIP. Accordingly, EPA is approving the regional haze portion of the State's November 30, 2016 SIP revision and converting EPA's previous action on Ohio's regional haze SIP from a limited approval/limited disapproval to a full approval. Specifically, EPA finds that this portion of Ohio's November 30, 2016, SIP revision satisfies the SO
On December 21, 2017 (82 FR 60572), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) proposing approval of Ohio's November 30, 2016 SIP revision allowing for the full approval of Ohio's Regional Haze SIP, the removal of the Regional Haze FIP, and the approval of prong 4 elements.
The specific details of Ohio's November 30, 2016 SIP revision and the rationale for EPA's approval are discussed in the NPR and will not be restated here. EPA received three comments on the proposed action, none were relevant to the rulemaking.
EPA is taking the following actions: (1) Approving the portion of Ohio's November 30, 2016 SIP submittal seeking to change from reliance on CAIR to reliance on CSAPR for certain regional haze requirements; (2) converting EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of Ohio's March 11, 2011 regional haze SIP to a full approval; (3) withdrawing the FIP provisions that address the limited disapproval; (4) approving the visibility prong of Ohio's infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2006 and 2012 PM
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. There are no Indian reservation lands in Ohio. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), this action is subject to the requirements of CAA section 307(d), as it revises a FIP under CAA section 110(c).
This rule is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of particular applicability.
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 July 9, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See CAA section 307(b)(2).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Regional haze, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection associated with the Commission's pole attachment complaint rules. This document is consistent with the Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 17-154, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the
The amendment to 47 CFR 1.1424, published at 82 FR 61453, December 28, 2017, is effective on May 10, 2018.
Michael Ray, Attorney Advisor, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-0357, or by email at
This document announces that, on May 1, 2018, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements relating to the pole attachment complaint rules contained in the Commission's Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 17-154, published at 82 FR 61453, December 28, 2017.
The OMB Control Number is 3060-0392. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the rules. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A620, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-0392, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on May 1, 2018, for the information collection requirements contained in the modifications to the Commission's pole attachment rules in 47 CFR 1.1424.
Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0392.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Commission reorients its existing rural call completion rules to better reflect strategies that have worked to reduce rural call completion problems while at the same time reducing the overall burden of its rules on providers. This Second Report and Order (
Effective June 11, 2018, except for the rule contained in 47 CFR 64.2113, which requires approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Commission will publish a document in the
Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division, Zach Ross, at (202) 418-1033, or
This is a summary of the Commission's Second Report and Order in WC Docket No. 13-39, adopted and released on April 17, 2017. The full text of this document, including all Appendices, is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It is also available on the Commission's website at
1. The record in this proceeding and our complaint data establish that rural call completion issues persist. Covered providers have incentives both to serve customers well and minimize routing costs; but these incentives are in tension because least-cost routing can lead to poor call completion performance. While intercarrier compensation reform has the potential to greatly improve rural call completion, it is unlikely to eliminate all incentives that may lead to call completion issues in the foreseeable future. We are committed to refining our approach to better target these important issues.
2. Building on our proposal in the
3. The monitoring requirement we adopt has significant support in the record. It encourages covered providers to ensure that calls are completed, assigns clear responsibility for call completion issues, and enhances our ability to take enforcement action. We therefore reject arguments that Commission action is unnecessary. We anticipate that the monitoring rule we adopt will ensure better call completion to rural areas by covered providers. We recognize that as a hypothetical alternative means to increase the incentive for good rural call completion performance, we could instead increase the size of penalties for violations of the Act and our rules stemming from rural call completion failures. We nonetheless find the monitoring rule we adopt necessary for several reasons. Today's
4.
5. We agree with numerous commenters that covered providers must have flexibility in determining and conducting prospective monitoring that is appropriate for their respective networks and mixes of traffic. Covered providers have unique “network-specific demands and customer expectations” and we agree that “a one-size-fits-all implementation” could unduly limit their ability to meet those demands and expectations. We therefore provide covered providers the flexibility to determine the standards and methods best suited to their individual networks. We agree with Comcast that regardless of how a covered provider engages in monitoring, its approach must involve comparing rural and non-rural areas to ensure that Americans living in rural areas are receiving adequate service. Covered providers may make this comparison based on any measures reasonably calculated to evaluate call completion efficacy. Such measures may include metrics such as call answer rate, call completion rate, or network effectiveness ratio; or evaluating the implementation of specific measures to ensure adequate performance that build on those we propose to require intermediate providers to meet to comply with the service quality standards required under the RCC Act. Verizon's consent decree provides negative traffic spikes as one internal investigation trigger. The Verizon rural call completion study, commissioned pursuant to this consent decree, explains that a negative spike is a “sharp decrease from prior measurements over a short time.” We encourage covered providers to consider this and other possible metrics for use in fulfilling the monitoring requirement. Although we do not believe that it should be unduly difficult for covered providers to evaluate and compare how their intermediate providers perform in delivering traffic to individual rural OCNs, we also note that the Bureau's RCC Data Report illustrates some challenges of metrics-based evaluations. Accordingly, we encourage providers to explore and test a wide range of approaches and, where successful, share those solutions with industry peers and the Commission.
6. Conversely, we reject the argument that we should mandate the standards and best practices contained in the ATIS RCC Handbook. The ATIS RCC Handbook intermediate provider best practices include, inter alia: Managing the number of intermediate providers (
7. However, we also agree with commenters that we should encourage adherence to the ATIS RCC Handbook best practices. As such, while we decline to mandate compliance with the ATIS RCC Handbook best practices, we will treat covered provider adherence to all the ATIS RCC Handbook best practices as a safe harbor that establishes compliance with the monitoring rule. Thus, a covered provider that adheres to all of the ATIS RCC Handbook best practices will be deemed to be compliant with the monitoring rule. This safe harbor applies only to the best practices set forth in the 2015 version of the ATIS RCC Handbook, identified above. We will also take the ATIS RCC Handbook best practices into account in evaluating whether a covered provider has developed sufficiently robust and compliant monitoring processes. We find that this approach will encourage adherence to the best practices while giving covered providers flexibility to tailor their practices to their particular networks and business arrangements. Where a rural telephone company has a test line, we encourage a covered provider to make use of that test line as a part of its regular observation of intermediate provider performance.
8. We strongly encourage covered providers to limit the number of intermediate providers in the call chain. We specifically encourage covered providers to take advantage of the Managing Intermediate Providers Safe Harbor. Managing the number of intermediate providers in the call chain is an ATIS RCC Handbook best practice, and the record shows that limiting the number of intermediate providers can help ensure call completion to rural areas. By requiring covered providers to monitor and take responsibility for the performance of their intermediate providers, we anticipate that the rules we adopt will encourage covered providers to limit the number of intermediate providers in the call chain. Nevertheless, consistent with our decision to give covered providers flexibility, we decline to mandate a specific limit on the number of intermediate providers in the call chain. Such a mandate would be unduly rigid, as even those who advocate such a mandate acknowledge that exceptions would be needed. We specifically reject HD Tandem's proposal to allow additional intermediate providers only upon a waiver request as unduly burdensome and too slow to be compatible with the dynamic routing needs of covered providers. We are concerned that a specific limit mandate conflates the number of “hops” with good hops; for example, it assumes that a small number of badly performing intermediate providers are better than multiple well-performing intermediate providers. Although proponents of a strict limit argue that it would impose “virtually no burden on originating providers beyond the inclusion of effective clauses in their contracts with their intermediate providers,” the record indicates that covered providers would face additional burdens if they lacked flexibility to efficiently route calls during periods of high call volume such as natural disasters and national security related events. We note that only two covered providers have stated that they meet the Managing Intermediate Provider Safe Harbor, notwithstanding the reduced burdens under the
9. While we decline to impose a strict limit on the number of intermediate providers in the call chain, we recognize that an animating concern of those who advocate for such a limit is avoiding an attenuated call path in which responsibility for problems is difficult or impossible to trace and in which no one party “owns” ensuring successful call completion. As discussed below, we require covered providers to exercise oversight regarding their entire intermediate provider call path to rural destinations. The RCC Act further requires that intermediate providers register with the Commission, and precludes covered providers from using intermediate providers who are not registered. These requirements will help to ensure that covered providers only use responsible intermediate providers and can identify intermediate providers in the call path. We therefore are able to address the underlying problem of diffuse responsibility without imposing a rigid mandate capping the number of intermediate providers.
10.
11. We interpret the retrospective monitoring requirement as encompassing, at minimum, the duties under sections 201, 202, and 217 of the Act set forth in the
12. We specifically highlight that under the
13.
14. Where a covered provider detects a persistent problem based on retrospective monitoring, we require the covered provider to select a solution that is reasonably calculated to be effective. A temporary and quickly abandoned solution is not acceptable. Covered providers that do not effectively correct problems with call completion to specific areas have “allow[ed] the conditions to persist” and are subject to enforcement action for violation of the monitoring rule as well as the Act and our call blocking prohibition thereunder. We agree with NCTA that requiring a “permanent” solution is too rigid and may not account for a rapidly changing marketplace. At the same time, a covered provider's or carrier's responsibility under the monitoring rule and
15. Although we give covered providers flexibility in the remedial steps they choose so long as they pursue a solution that is reasonably calculated to be effective, we specifically require removing intermediate providers from routes where warranted. The ATIS RCC Handbook identifies “temporarily or permanently removing the intermediate provider from the routing path” as a best practice when an intermediate provider fails to perform at an acceptable service level, and we agree that this must be among the remedial steps that covered providers must take where appropriate. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) endorses route removal as a remedy and suggests that the only exception for removal of sufficiently badly performing intermediates “should be for call paths for which there are no alternative routes, so long as the lack of an alternative route can be reasonably documented.” We agree with the CPUC and conclude that where an intermediate provider has sustained inadequate performance, removal from a particular route is necessary except where a covered provider can reasonably document that no alternative routes exist. Sustained inadequate performance is manifest when, even if a provider alters routing to a rural area, call completion problems with that provider persist or recur within days, weeks, or months after the routing change.
16. We reject arguments that fulfilling this obligation is unduly difficult or infeasible. Both the record and information gathered in enforcement investigations indicates that some providers have removed intermediate providers from call paths for poor performance. We disagree with Sprint that identifying “sustained inadequate performance” is “extraordinarily difficult”—if a covered provider fulfills its monitoring duty, it will be able to identify persistent outliers and sources of repeated anomalies or problems. Further, the monitoring requirement we establish forecloses the argument that fulfilling the duty to correct identified performance problems is not feasible because a covered provider hands off traffic without exercising further oversight. The covered provider has the obligation to prevent poor rural call completion performance, and business models that foreclose performing this duty are unacceptable.
17.
18. Under the monitoring rule we adopt today, covered providers must exercise responsibility for the performance of the entire intermediate provider call path to help ensure that calls to rural areas are completed. We will hold covered providers accountable for exercising oversight regarding the performance of all intermediate providers in the path of calls for which the covered provider makes the initial long-distance call path choice. We expect covered providers to take remedial measures where necessary and covered providers who fail to remediate problems are subject to enforcement action. As explained below, covered providers may fulfill their monitoring obligation through direct monitoring or a combination of direct monitoring and contractual restrictions.
19. We find that allocating this responsibility to covered providers is appropriate because, as the entity that makes the initial long-distance call path choice, covered providers are in a position to exercise responsibility over the downstream call path to the terminating LEC. As to covered provider carriers, Verizon correctly notes that our authority under sections 201 and 202, “combined with [the Commission's] . . . longstanding policy,” makes carriers “responsible for the provision of service to their customers even when they contract with intermediate providers to carry calls to their destinations.” Because the definition of “covered provider” excludes entities with low call volumes, we expect that covered providers are of sufficient size to put resources into monitoring and negotiate appropriate provisions with any intermediate providers with which they contract. In stating this, we do not suggest that smaller carriers are free from call completion obligations. We believe that placing responsibility on a single, readily identifiable party that ultimately controls the call path will be an effective measure in addressing rural call completion issues going forward. Further, covered providers are in a position to promptly remedy rural call completion issues when they arise by virtue of their contractual relationships with intermediate providers and their ability to modify call routing paths, enabling rural call completion issues to be resolved without waiting for Commission enforcement action, thereby benefiting rural consumers.
20. For common carriers, the duty to monitor the entire intermediate provider call path also flows from section 217, which states that “the act, omission, or failure of any officer, agent, or other person acting for or employed by any common carrier or user, acting within the scope of his employment, shall in every case be also deemed to be the act, omission, or failure of such carrier or user as well as that of the person.” As the
21. We give covered providers flexibility in how they fulfill this responsibility to determine the standards and methods best suited to their individual networks. Under the rule we adopt today, a covered provider is accountable for monitoring the performance of any intermediate provider with which it contracts, including that intermediate provider's decision as to whether calls may be handed off to additional downstream intermediate providers—and if so, how many—and whether it has taken sufficient steps to ensure that calls will be completed post-handoff. We require covered providers to directly monitor the performance of intermediate providers with which they have a contractual relationship, and we decline to impose an unnecessarily burdensome mandate requiring direct covered provider monitoring of the entire call chain. We use the term “direct” monitoring to distinguish active monitoring from reliance solely on contractual protections. With respect to “direct” monitoring, we permit covered providers to perform the monitoring themselves or rely on a third-party vendor, acting on behalf of the covered provider, that directly monitors the intermediate provider and reports back to the covered provider. We underscore that covered providers will remain ultimately responsible for monitoring even where they use a third-party vendor. Rather, a covered provider may manage the call path through (i) direct monitoring of all intermediate providers or (ii) a combination of direct monitoring of contracted intermediate providers and contractual restrictions on directly monitored intermediate providers that are reasonably calculated to ensure rural call completion through the responsible use of any further intermediate providers. The ATIS RCC Handbook provides that as a best practice, contractual agreements can be used to ensure that intermediate providers meet performance expectations and hold intermediates accountable for performance. Contractual measures that meet this standard include limiting the use of further intermediate providers and provisions that ensure quality call completion.
22. We encourage covered providers to incorporate the following provisions, suggested by NASUCA: (1) “[r]equir[ing] each downstream carrier on an ongoing basis to provide specific information regarding its system and the limitations of its system, including information regarding any difficulties its system may have interoperating with other systems using different technologies”; (2) “[r]equir[ig] each downstream carrier on an ongoing basis to provide specific information regarding any bandwidth or other capacity constraints that would prevent its system from completing calls to particular destinations at busy times”; (3) “[r]equir[ing] each downstream carrier to use properly designed and properly functioning alarms in its system that ensure immediate notice of any outages on its system”; (4) “[r]equir[ing] each downstream carrier to use properly designed and properly functioning mechanisms to ensure that the downstream carrier, if unable to complete a call, timely releases the call back to the upstream carrier”; (5) “[r]equir[ing] each downstream carrier to use properly designed and properly functioning mechanisms to ensure that the downstream carrier, if making successive attempts to route the call through different lower-tiered downstream carriers, timely passes the call to a second (or third or fourth) lower-tiered downstream carrier if a first (or second or third) lower-tiered downstream carrier cannot complete it”; (6) “[r]equir[ing] each downstream carrier to use properly designed and properly functioning mechanisms to detect and control looping, including the use of hop counters or other equivalent mechanisms that alert a carrier to the presence of a loop”; (7) “[e]stablish[ing] direct measures of quality and requir[ing] downstream carriers to meet them”; (8) “[e]stablish[ing] and implement[ing] appropriate sanctions for intermediate carriers that fail to meet standards”; (9) “[r]equir[ing] downstream carriers to manage lower-tiered downstream carriers and to hold lower-tiered downstream carriers to the same standards that they themselves are held”; and (10) “[d]efin[ing] the responsibilities of downstream carriers in a written agreement.” Based on these suggestions, including “[e]stablish[ing] direct measures of quality and requir[ing] downstream carriers to meet them,” we do not agree with NCTA that “`direct monitoring' is only feasible with the first intermediate provider in the call path and not with subsequent intermediate providers.” Additionally, we do not see any benefit to foreclosing the option to rely entirely on direct monitoring. Insofar as a covered provider relies on contractual restrictions rather than direct monitoring for downstream intermediate providers, the covered provider must ensure these restrictions flow down the entire intermediate provider call path. For example, suppose calls travel from covered provider X to intermediate providers A, B, and C in turn, and X contracts only with A. X must directly monitor A. X must ensure that A imposes contractual restrictions on B reasonably calculated to ensure rural call completion, and X must ensure that A or B imposes such restrictions on C. Thus, a covered provider may not avoid liability for poor performance by asserting that a rural call went awry at an unknown point down a lengthy chain of intermediate providers or by claiming solely that its contracts with initial downstream vendors prohibited unlawful conduct. Conversely, covered providers that engage in reasonable monitoring efforts will not be held responsible for intermediate provider conduct that is not, or could not be, identified through such reasonable monitoring efforts. This conclusion is consistent with our decision not to impose strict liability under the monitoring rule.
23. Our balanced approach ensures that covered providers exercise responsibility for rural call completion without imposing an unduly rigid or burdensome mandate. We therefore reject various “all-or-nothing” approaches. We reject the argument that covered providers should not bear any responsibility for the performance of non-contracted intermediate carriers. This argument mistakenly assumes that the covered provider is unable to reach the behavior of downstream intermediate providers through directly contracted intermediate providers, and the record indicates otherwise. Conversely, because we are able to require covered providers to exercise responsibility for the performance of the entire intermediate provider call path while providing significant flexibility in how they do so, we find mandating direct covered provider monitoring of the entire call chain unnecessarily burdensome. Similarly, we do not mandate that covered providers must directly contract with all intermediate providers in the call path. Such a requirement would be superfluous given covered provider responsibility for the overall call path, and we agree with CTIA that such a requirement would unduly prescribe provider conduct. Nonetheless, we encourage covered providers to directly contract with all intermediate providers in the call path consistent with the ATIS RCC Handbook best practices.
24. Communication is key to addressing rural call completion issues. Of particular importance is communication between covered providers, which make the initial long-distance call path choice, and terminating rural LECs. Together, these entities account for the beginning and end of the long-distance call path. While ATIS maintains a contact list of service provider rural call completion points of contact, participation is voluntary, and accordingly the list only contains contact information for a “limited number of covered providers.” To participate in the ATIS NGIIF Service Provider Contact Directory for rural call completion, ATIS asks providers to submit the following information: Toll free number; contact; contact number; email; fax; website; and other information. As NTCA and WTA explain, “[r]ural providers often report that they have no way to contact the responsible originating carrier or if they do, the person they contact has little to no understanding of the issue.” Conversely, when participants in the call chain communicate, they are more likely to resolve issues that arise.
25. We agree with NTCA and WTA that we should require covered providers to provide and maintain contact information as a low-cost measure to facilitate industry collaboration to address call completion issues. We therefore will require covered providers to make available on their websites a telephone number and email address for the express purpose of receiving and responding promptly to any rural call completion issues. We note that ATIS requests similar information for its voluntary rural call completion service provider contact directory. We require covered providers to ensure that the contact information available on their website is easy to find and use. Further, covered providers must ensure that any staff reachable through this contact information has the technical capability to promptly respond to and address call completion concerns. As the operators and experts of their individual call networks, covered provider technical staff are best positioned to expeditiously solve issues as they arise and as such should be the first point of contact in identifying and resolving rural call completion issues. We expect that covered providers will ensure that there is a means by which
26. Covered providers must keep the contact information current on their websites, updating with any changes within ten business days. The same timeline for updates applies to contact information placed on websites for responding to closed captioning concerns under our television closed captioning rules. Furthermore, because call completion problems may jeopardize public health and safety, we require covered providers to respond to communications regarding rural call completion issues via the contact information required under the rule we adopt as soon as reasonably practicable and within no more than a single business day under ordinary circumstances. We recognize, however, that complex call completion issues may take longer than a single day to resolve, and clarify that this requirement refers to an initial response in such circumstances and does not indicate that all such issues must be resolved within a single business day.
27. We expect NECA to use the disclosures we require to establish and maintain a central, public list of covered provider contact information that can be easily accessed by rural providers on NECA's website. To facilitate creation of this list, we encourage covered providers to provide directly to NECA the same contact information that they make available on their websites pursuant to our requirement above, and we encourage covered providers to update NECA if they update the contact information on their websites. We would expect NECA to update its contact information directory regularly so that it remains current. We recognize that ATIS already maintains a voluntary contact directory. We expect NECA, given its role in compiling the list of rural carriers, would work with ATIS to develop a repository of covered provider contact information, ensuring a comprehensive list of covered provider contact information is available for reference by rural providers. We treat the contact information that NECA makes available in the same manner as the contact information that the covered provider makes available on its website in terms of the covered provider's duty to respond in a timely fashion. In other words, we require covered providers to respond to communications regarding rural call completion issues via the contact information that NECA makes available as soon as reasonably practicable, and within no more than a single business day under ordinary circumstances. An additional repository for contact information that is specific to covered providers will further encourage inter-and intra-industry cooperation to address call completion issues by offering carriers a centralized resource that facilitates communication if and when problems occur. We also encourage all providers, including rural providers, to submit their own contact information for inclusion in the ATIS Service Provider Contact Directory, which continues to be a helpful single source of contact information.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32. We reject allowing an exempt class of service for several reasons. First, we believe all Americans deserve all lawful calls to be completed, regardless
33.
34. We further decline to require covered providers to file their documented monitoring procedures publicly with the Commission, as NTCA suggests. NTCA contends that because we expect covered providers to document their processes for prospective monitoring, a filing requirement “imposes no meaningful burden.” But such documentation in many cases is likely to reveal important technical, personnel, and commercial details about the covered provider's network and business operations—so public disclosure would impose meaningful burdens. To the extent that a covered provider would be able to successfully obtain confidential treatment for part or all of its disclosure, it would mitigate the harm of disclosure but also would undercut any purported benefits. There is no countervailing benefit sufficient to warrant imposing this burden. We are able to obtain information on covered providers' monitoring practices in an investigation, so we do not need to impose a public disclosure requirement to effectively carry out our responsibilities. We therefore do not agree that a disclosure requirement would give covered providers “greater incentives to comply with procedures on file with the Commission.” We reiterate that we expect covered providers—and all regulated entities—to comply with our rules, and we are able to take enforcement action where they do not. Given the variance among covered providers' networks and operations and the flexibility our monitoring rule provides, we see little value to covered providers “know[ing] what individual carriers' procedures are and hav[ing] benchmarks against which subsequent performance can be measured”—each covered provider is able to adopt its own approach.
35.
36.
37. At the same time, we agree that maintaining adequate capacity is an important part of monitoring rural call completion performance. The ATIS RCC Handbook recommends that “it is important for the original IXC to maintain sufficient termination facilities that it can complete its own traffic when an intermediate provider cannot complete the call” because “[g]iven the cost challenges” intermediate providers have “to maintain a lean network and the aggregation of loads from multiple IXCs they must handle, there is a greater chance that, on a moment-to-moment basis, [intermediate providers] will not have capacity to complete a call” and “[m]aintaining its own termination capacity gives an IXC flexibility to quickly stop using an intermediate provider should performance problems develop.” Thus, while we do not mandate trunk augmentation at a specific utilization threshold, maintaining adequate capacity is an important part of being able to monitor the performance of intermediate providers and meet the rural call completion monitoring rule we adopt today.
38.
39.
40. We decline to adopt NTCA's recommendation that “the rules adopted in this order sunset after three years and revert to the rules [previously] in effect, absent a finding based on evidence and analysis that the new framework as adopted addresses rural call completion problems.” NTCA does not provide any examples of the Commission making use of this kind of `sunset and reversion' approach to rulemaking. The rules we adopt today are tailored to provide a more efficient and effective means to address persistent rural call completion issues than our prior rules. And, as outlined in the Further Notice, we propose and seek comment on further modifications to our rural call completion rules, including those we adopt today, as we work to implement the RCC Act. Imposing an arbitrary expiration date on these rules is therefore unnecessary and counterproductive, as it could undermine their overall effectiveness.
41. We retain the Commission's current definition of “covered provider,” adopted in the
42. Because we require each covered provider to monitor calls to rural incumbent LECs and competitive LECs, the definition of “rural incumbent LECs” we proposed in the
43. While we retain the definition of “intermediate provider” in our rules at present, the RCC Act definition of “intermediate provider” differs from the definition in our rules. Accordingly, in the
44. The Commission has previously articulated its direct and ancillary authority to adopt rules addressing rural call completion issues, and we rely on that same authority here. In addition to the authority previously articulated, section 217 of the Act provides additional authority to mandate that covered provider carriers monitor the overall intermediate provider call path and correct any identified intermediate provider performance problems. Intermediate providers in the call path “act for” the covered provider; therefore, without holding covered providers responsible for the acts or omissions they initiate to and through intermediate providers, we cannot ensure that covered provider carriers are fulfilling their statutory duties.
45.
46. We find that the burdens associated with supplementing or replacing the existing reporting requirements are likely to outweigh any benefits to the data collection. We therefore decline to amend our reporting rule. We agree with the Bureau's conclusion in the RCC Data Report and commenters who suggest that addressing the ongoing data quality issues associated with Form 480 by supplementing or replacing the data collection rules with new requirements is likely to be prohibitively burdensome on covered providers, while potentially providing little value over the current regime. The record supports the
47. The monitoring rule we adopt will be more effective in promoting covered provider compliance and facilitating enforcement where needed than the reporting rules because the monitoring rule imposes a direct, substantive obligation and because the reporting rules have proven to be not as effective as originally hoped. Furthermore, as the Commission has found previously, rural call completion problems are likely to be addressed especially effectively by ongoing intercarrier compensation reform, a conclusion that is supported by the record. Removal of the reporting requirement will provide covered providers with prompt relief by obviating the need to spend time and resources compiling and filing reports that would otherwise be due to the Commission on May 1, 2018. Because we eliminate the reporting requirement, we eliminate section 64.2109, which provided that “[p]roviders subject to the reporting requirements in § 64.2105 of this chapter may make requests for Commission nondisclosure of the data submitted under § 0.459 of this chapter by so indicating on the report at the time that the data are submitted” and that “[t]he Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau will release information to states upon request, if the states are able to maintain the confidentiality of this information.” We will continue to treat reports already submitted to the Commission in accordance with the prior rule,
48.
49. In the
50. Following adoption of this Order, covered providers qualifying for the safe harbor will continue to be subject to reduced recording and retention requirements. And, upon our adoption of rules implementing the RCC Act, covered providers who qualify for the safe harbor provisions of section 64.2107(a) will also be exempt from the quality of service requirements of the RCC Act, per new section 262(h) of the Act. Retaining these safe harbor provisions will maintain the incentive for covered providers' to engage in call routing to rural areas that minimizes the use of multiple intermediate providers, a practice that contributes to rural call completion issues. We remind covered providers that safe harbor status can be revoked at any time by the Commission for covered providers that violate Commission rules, or are found to no longer be in compliance with the safe harbor provisions.
51. We decline to institute the amendments to the safe harbor qualifications suggested by Verizon, including allowing the “
52. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the
53. In this Order, we revise our rules to better address ongoing problems in the completion of long-distance telephone calls to rural areas. Specifically, we require covered providers to monitor intermediate provider performance, and eliminate the data reporting requirements created by the Commission in 2013. The requirements we adopt today will be more effective and less burdensome than the prior reporting regime established in the
54. All Americans should have confidence that when a call is made to them, they will receive it. But for Americans living in rural or remote areas of the country, too often that is not the case. Call completion problems manifest in a variety of ways—for example, callers may experience false ring tones or busy signals while the called party's phone may never ring at all; or when a call goes through, one or both parties to a call may be unable to hear the other; or the caller ID may show an inaccurate number; or calls to rural numbers may be significantly delayed. Regardless of how the caller and/or called party experiences a call completion problem, the failures have serious repercussions, imposing needless economic and personal costs, and potentially threatening public safety in local communities. We continue to conclude that a key reason for rural call completion issues is that calls to rural areas are often handled by numerous different providers, and that providers' incentives to minimize their intercarrier compensation payments contributes to problems involving carriers blocking or degrading traffic to rural areas.
55. The actions that we take today demonstrate and reflect our continued commitment to solve the ongoing problems in the completion of long-distance telephone calls to rural areas using a multi-faceted approach requiring diverse solutions and aggressive action by all participants in the call completion process. Given our experience collecting and analyzing rural call completion data and addressing rural call completion problems identified by rural consumers, we reorient our existing rural call completion rules to better reflect strategies that have worked to reduce rural call completion problems while at the same time reducing the overall burden of our rules on providers. Our new measures are informed by the record in this proceeding and our investigations of entities that have failed to ensure that calls are appropriately routed and delivered to rural areas.
56. First, we adopt a new rule requiring “covered providers”—entities that select the initial long-distance route for a large number of lines—to monitor the performance of the “intermediate providers” to which they hand off calls. By holding a central party responsible for call completion issues, it will be less likely for calls to “fall through the cracks” along a lengthy chain of intermediate providers. The monitoring rule encourages covered providers to ensure that calls are completed, assigns clear responsibility for call completion issues, and enhances our ability to take enforcement action where needed. To facilitate communication about problems that arise, we also require covered providers to make available a point of contact to address rural call completion issues. Our balanced approach ensures that covered providers exercise responsibility for rural call completion without imposing an unduly rigid or burdensome mandate; in addition, it seeks to expedite both the identification and resolution of call completion issues if and when they arise.
57. Next, we eliminate the reporting requirement for covered providers established in 2013 in the
58. The Commission did not receive comments specifically addressing the rules and policies proposed in the IRFA.
59. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to this proceeding.
60. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the final rules adopted pursuant to the
61.
62. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of Aug 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
63. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2012 Census of Governments indicates that there were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number there were 37,132 General purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80. In this
81. Regarding our monitoring requirements, we require covered providers to monitor the performance of each intermediate provider with which they contract. Required monitoring entails both prospective evaluation to prevent problems and retrospective investigation of any problems that arise. We also require covered providers take steps that are reasonably calculated to correct any identified performance problem with the intermediate provider. Additionally, we specify that covered providers must publish point of contact information for rural call completion issues.
82. Regarding our rural call completion recording, retention, and reporting rules, we eliminate the data reporting requirement. The safe harbor provisions established in the
83. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rules for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.
84. The
85. Under the monitoring requirement, covered providers must exercise responsibility for the entire intermediate provider call path to help ensure that calls to rural areas are completed. Because “covered providers” excludes entities with low call volumes, we expect that covered providers are of sufficient size to negotiate appropriate provisions with any intermediate providers with which they contract. As stated above, although we encourage limiting the use of intermediate providers, we do not impose a rigid cap on the number of intermediate providers. Similarly, we do not mandate that covered providers must contract with all intermediate providers in the call path. In adopting this approach, we considered, but declined to adopt, a requirement that covered providers directly monitor the performance of intermediate providers with which they lack a contractual relationship. Because covered providers must monitor the performance of intermediate providers with which they contract and must ensure that those covered providers take appropriate measures to ensure calls are completed, we find mandating direct covered provider monitoring of the entire call chain unnecessarily burdensome. Regarding our requirement that covered providers provide and maintain point of contact information for rural call completion issues, we find that this is a low-cost measure to facilitate industry collaboration to address call completion issues.
86. Further, we considered, but declined to adopt, specific performance targets or benchmarks for call answer rates, call completion rates, or any other performance metric, or certification or audit requirements in conjunction with the monitoring rule, finding the burdens associated with these approaches to outweigh their likely benefits. For the same reason, after consideration, we declined to adopt a mandate that terminating rural carriers activate an automated test line, or augment trunks used for RCC paths when they reach a monthly utilization rate of 80%.
87. Regarding our recording, retention, and reporting requirements, we find that eliminating the data reporting requirements created by the
88. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the
89. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5 U.S.C. 604, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules, as proposed, addressed in this Second Report and Order. The FRFA is set forth above. The Commission will send a copy of this Second Report and Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
90. This
91. In this present document, we require covered providers to provide and maintain contact information on their websites a telephone number and email address for the express purpose of receiving and responding promptly to any rural call completion issues. We have assessed the effects of this rule, and find that any burden on small businesses will be minimal because this is a low-cost measure to facilitate industry collaboration to address call completion issues.
92. Congressional Review Act (CRA). The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,
93. For further information about this proceeding, please contact Zach Ross, FCC Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division, Room 5-C211, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, at (202) 418-1033 or
94. Accordingly,
95.
96.
97.
98.
Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.
For the reasons set forth above, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 202, 225, 251(e), 254(k), 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, Public Law 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 202, 217, 218, 220, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 616, 620, and the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, unless otherwise noted.
The revision reads as follows:
(a)(1) A covered provider may reduce its recording and retention requirements under § 64.2103 if it files one of the following certifications, signed by an officer or director of the covered provider regarding the accuracy and completeness of the information provided, in WC Docket No. 13-39.
For each intermediate provider with which it contracts, a covered provider shall:
(a) Monitor the intermediate provider's performance in the completion of call attempts to rural telephone companies from subscriber lines for which the covered provider makes the initial long-distance call path choice; and
(b) Based on the results of such monitoring, take steps that are reasonably calculated to correct any identified performance problem with the intermediate provider, including removing the intermediate provider from a particular route after sustained inadequate performance.
Covered providers shall make publicly available contact information for the receipt and handling of rural call completion issues. Covered providers must designate a telephone number and email address for the express purpose of receiving and responding to any rural call completion issues. Covered providers shall include this information on their websites, and the required contact information must be easy to find and use. Covered providers shall keep this information current and update it to reflect any changes within ten (10) business days. Covered providers shall ensure that any staff reachable through this contact information has the technical capability to promptly respond to and address rural call completion issues. Covered providers must respond to communications regarding rural call completion issues via the contact information required under this rule as soon as reasonably practicable and, under ordinary circumstances, within a single business day.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) publishes its final Annual Determination (AD) for 2018, pursuant to its authority under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Through the AD, NMFS identifies U.S. fisheries operating in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific Ocean that will be required to take fisheries observers upon NMFS' request. The purpose of observing identified fisheries is to learn more about sea turtle interactions in a given fishery, evaluate measures to prevent or reduce sea turtle takes and to implement the prohibition against sea turtle takes. Fisheries identified on the 2018 AD (see Table 1) will be eligible to carry observers as of the effective date of this rulemaking, and will remain on the AD for a five-year period until December 31, 2022.
Effective June 9, 2018.
See
Sara Wissmann, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 427-8402; Ellen Keane, Greater Atlantic Region, (978) 282-8476; Dennis Klemm, Southeast Region, (727) 824-5312; Dan Lawson, West Coast Region, (206) 526-4740; Irene Kelly, Pacific Islands Region, (808) 725-5141. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the hearing impaired may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1 (800) 877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
Information regarding the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) List of Fisheries (LOF) may be obtained at
• NMFS, Greater Atlantic Region, Protected Resources Division, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930;
• NMFS, Southeast Region, Protected Resources Division, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701;
• NMFS, West Coast Region, Protected Resources Division, 501 W Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802;
• NMFS, Pacific Islands Region, Protected Resources Division, 1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.
Under the ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1531
Incidental take, or bycatch, in fishing gear is the primary anthropogenic source of sea turtle injury and mortality in U.S. waters. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take (defined to include harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting or attempting to engage in any such conduct), including incidental take, of endangered sea turtles. Pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA, NMFS has issued regulations extending the prohibition of take, with exceptions, to threatened sea turtles (50 CFR 223.205 and 223.206). Section 11 of the ESA provides for civil and criminal penalties for anyone who violates the Act or a regulation issued to implement the Act. NMFS may grant exceptions to
The most effective way for NMFS to learn more about sea turtle-fishery interactions in order to implement the take prohibitions and prevent or minimize take is to place observers aboard fishing vessels. In 2007, NMFS issued a regulation (50 CFR 222.402) establishing procedures to annually identify, pursuant to specified criteria and after notice and opportunity for comment, those fisheries in which the agency intends to place observers (72 FR 43176; August 3, 2007). These regulations specify that NMFS may place observers on U.S. fishing vessels, commercial or recreational, operating in U.S. territorial waters, the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ), or on the high seas, or on vessels that are otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Failure to comply with the requirements under this rule may result in enforcement action.
NMFS will pay the direct costs for vessels to carry observers. These include observer salary and insurance costs. NMFS may also evaluate other potential direct costs, should they arise. Once selected, a fishery will be required to carry observers, if requested, for a period of five years without further action by NMFS. This will enable NMFS to develop an appropriate sampling protocol to investigate whether, how, when, where, and under what conditions incidental takes are occurring; to evaluate whether existing measures are minimizing or preventing takes; and to implement ESA take prohibitions and conserve turtles.
Pursuant to 50 CFR 222.402, NOAA's Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA), in consultation with Regional Administrators and Fisheries Science Center Directors, develops a proposed AD identifying which fisheries are required to carry observers, if requested, to monitor potential interactions with sea turtles. NMFS provides an opportunity for public comment on any proposed AD. The best available scientific, commercial, or other information regarding sea turtle-fishery interactions; sea turtle distribution; sea turtle strandings; fishing techniques, gears used, target species, seasons and areas fished; and/or qualitative data from logbooks or fisher reports informs the AD. Specifically, this AD is based on the extent to which:
(1) The fishery operates in the same waters and at the same time as sea turtles are present;
(2) The fishery operates at the same time or prior to elevated sea turtle strandings; or
(3) The fishery uses a gear or technique that is known or likely to result in incidental take of sea turtles based on documented or reported takes in the same or similar fisheries; and
(4) NMFS intends to monitor the fishery and anticipates that it will have the funds to do so.
For the 2018 AD, NMFS used the most recent version of the annually published Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) List of Fisheries (LOF) as the comprehensive list of commercial fisheries for consideration. The LOF includes all known state and Federal commercial fisheries that occur in U.S. waters and on the high seas. In preparing an AD, however, we do not rely on the three-part MMPA LOF classification scheme. In addition, unlike the LOF, an AD may include recreational fisheries likely to interact with sea turtles based on the best available information.
NMFS consulted with appropriate state and Federal fisheries officials to identify which fisheries, both commercial and recreational, to consider. NMFS carefully considered all recommendations and information available for developing the proposed AD. This is not an exhaustive or comprehensive list of all fisheries with documented or suspected takes of sea turtles. For other fisheries, NMFS may already be addressing incidental take through another mechanism (
Notice of the final AD will publish in the
The first AD was published in 2010 and identified 19 fisheries that were required to carry observers for a period of five years, through December 31, 2014, if requested by NMFS. On the 2015 AD, NMFS identified 14 fisheries, 11 were previously listed and 3 were newly listed. The 14 fisheries are currently required to carry observers for a period of five years, through December 31, 2019. The fisheries currently listed on the AD can be found at
As part of the 2018 AD, NMFS has included, to the extent practicable, information on the fisheries and gear types to observe, geographic and seasonal scope of coverage, and any other relevant information. NMFS intends to monitor the fisheries and anticipates that it will have the funds to do so. After publication of a final determination, a 30-day delay in effective date for implementing observer coverage will follow, except for those fisheries where the AA has determined that there is good cause pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act to make the rule effective without a 30-day delay. For the 2018 AD, the AA has not made this determination, therefore, this rule is effective 30 days after publication of this notice, see
The design of any observer program for fisheries identified through the AD process, including how observers will be allocated to individual vessels, will vary among fisheries, fishing sectors, gear types, and geographic regions and will ultimately be determined by the individual NMFS Regional Office, Science Center, and/or observer program. During the program design, NMFS will follow the standards below for distributing and placing observers among fisheries identified in the AD and among vessels in those fisheries:
(1) The requirement to obtain the best available scientific information;
(2) The requirement that observers be assigned fairly and equitably among fisheries and among vessels in a fishery;
(3) The requirement that no individual person or vessel, or group of persons or vessels, be subject to
(4) The need to minimize costs and avoid duplication, where practicable.
Vessels subject to observer coverage under the AD must comply with observer safety requirements specified in 50 CFR 600.725 and 600.746. Specifically, 50 CFR 600.746(c) requires vessels subject to observer coverage to provide adequate and safe conditions for carrying an observer and conditions that allow for operation of normal observer functions. To provide such conditions, a vessel must comply with the applicable regulations regarding observer accommodations (see 50 CFR parts 229, 300, 600, 622, 635, 648, 660, and 679) and possess a current United States Coast Guard (USCG) Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Examination decal or a USCG certificate of examination. A vessel that fails to meet these requirements at the time an observer is to be deployed is prohibited from fishing (50 CFR 600.746(f)), unless NMFS determines that an alternative platform (
Again, note that fisheries not included on the 2018 AD may still be observed under statutory authority other than the ESA (
The sea turtle distribution and ecological use of habitats that leads to the overlap of sea turtles and fisheries is critical information that NMFS uses to inform the development of the final AD. A summary of this information was included in the proposed AD (October 19, 2017, 82 FR 48674) and was considered in the development of the final 2018 AD.
NMFS received seventeen comments on the proposed rule from members of the public, Oceana, Inc., Turtle Island Restoration Network, Omega Protein, Inc., Garden State Seafood Association, and the State of Maryland. Many commenters expressed general support of the rule or fishery observer programs, and others provided suggestions and requests for the inclusion or exclusion of particular fisheries. All substantive comments are specifically addressed below. Comments on issues outside the scope of the AD were noted, but are not responded to in this final rule.
The MMPA LOF fishery classifications do not directly influence the AD. Existing observer coverage, regardless of the mandate (
As stated in the preamble, “Sampling designs for all NMFS observer programs are developed to provide statistically valid information and to produce results that will contribute to the body of best available science. The sampling design will vary depending on many factors, including the fishery to be observed, the spatial and temporal variability in the fishery and species observed, and the overall goals of the observer program. Once a fishery is selected for observer coverage, a sampling design will be developed to yield statistically valid results.” [72 FR 43176, August 3, 2007].
NMFS would also like to clarify that the universe of commercial fisheries considered for the AD (50 CFR 222.402) is based on the MMPA LOF. If the LOF defines a fishery based on broad gear type, NMFS must use that broad gear type on the AD. The LOF defines the scope and geographic area of the mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery, and under the AD, we are unable to isolate specific sections of the fishery for inclusion or exclusion. NMFS must annually reexamine the LOF and provide the opportunity for public comment. NMFS will consider any proposals for changes to the LOF submitted during the annual public comment process. However, even without changes to the LOF, NMFS may determine that only portions of a fishery will be observed using AD authority. For example, while NMFS has decided to include the mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery on the 2018 AD, NMFS is most interested in increasing coverage in nearshore coastal waters of the mid-Atlantic and Delaware Bay.
When evaluating a fishery for inclusion on the AD, we look at all observer data available for the fishery. NMFS notes the specific data provided on gillnet observations that have occurred in New Jersey, but as noted above we are unable to isolate one state or section of the mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery for either inclusion or exclusion from the AD. However, NMFS considers this information when determining the sampling protocol.
NMFS would also like to clarify how stranding data may be attributed to a particular fishery. Proximity to a particular fishery or fisheries in the area is not the only factor considered, rather
Decomposition classifications (
NMFS would also like to clarify that the AD is not directly related to the LOF classifications, and a specific classification of a fishery on the LOF does not alone justify inclusion on the AD. Please see the response to Comments 3 and 7 for additional detail.
NMFS includes two new fisheries (both in the Atlantic Ocean/Gulf of Mexico) on the 2018 AD. The two fisheries, described below and listed in Table 1, are the mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery and the Gulf of Mexico menhaden purse seine fishery.
NMFS used the 2017 MMPA LOF (82 FR 3655; January 12, 2017) as the comprehensive list of commercial fisheries to evaluate fisheries to include on the AD. The fishery name, definition, and number of vessels/persons for fisheries listed on the AD are taken from the most recent MMPA LOF. Additionally, the fishery descriptions below include a particular fishery's current classification on the MMPA LOF (
Sea turtles are vulnerable to entanglement and drowning in gillnets. The main risk to sea turtles from capture in gillnet gear is forced submergence (
NMFS includes the mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery on the 2018 AD given known interactions between sea turtles and this gear type and the need to collect more sea turtle bycatch data in state inshore gillnet fisheries. The mid-
Gear in this fishery is managed by several Federal FMPs and Interstate FMPs managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. These fisheries are primarily managed by total allowable catch (TAC); individual trip limits (quotas); effort caps (limited number of days at sea per vessel); time and area closures; and gear restrictions and modifications.
This fishery is classified as Category I on the MMPA LOF, which authorizes NMFS to observe this fishery in state and federal waters for marine mammal interactions and to collect information on sea turtles should a take occur on an observed trip. This fishery was listed on the 2010 AD and was eligible for observer coverage through 2014.
NMFS includes this fishery pursuant to the criteria identified at 50 CFR 222.402(a)(1) for listing a fishery on the AD because sea turtles are known to occur in the same areas where the fishery operates, takes have been well documented in this fishery, and NMFS intends to monitor this fishery, particularly the segment that occurs in the nearshore coastal waters of the mid-Atlantic and Delaware Bay.
Pound net, weir, seine and floating trap fisheries may use mesh similar to that used in gillnets, but the gear is prosecuted differently from traditional gillnets. Purse seines, weirs and floating traps also have the potential to entangle and drown sea turtles.
NMFS includes the Gulf of Mexico menhaden purse seine fishery on the 2018 AD. The Gulf of Mexico menhaden purse seine fishery (estimated 40-42 vessels/persons) targets menhaden. The fishery uses purse seine gear and operates in bays, sounds, and nearshore coastal waters along the Gulf of Mexico coast. The majority of fishing effort occurs in Louisiana and Mississippi, with lesser effort in Alabama and Texas state waters. Florida prohibits the use of purse seines in state waters. The fishery is state-managed, with planning efforts coordinated under the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission Interstate Gulf Menhaden Fishery Management Plan.
This fishery is classified as Category II on the MMPA LOF, and has never been included on the AD. Sea turtle strandings in the northern Gulf of Mexico have been documented during times and in areas near where the menhaden fishery operates. The fishery was observed in the early-1990s by Louisiana State University. In 2011, NMFS conducted a pilot observer program in this fishery to better understand the fishery's operations and evaluate the feasibility of observing for marine mammal and sea turtle bycatch. During the pilot observer program, two sea turtles were documented, one dead Kemp's ridley that was excluded by the large fish excluder and one live unidentified turtle that was successfully released from the purse-seine net. Future observer efforts will build on the information obtained in 2011.
NMFS includes this fishery pursuant to the criteria identified at 50 CFR 222.402(a)(1) for listing a fishery on the AD because sea turtles are known to occur in the same areas where the fishery operates, takes have been documented in this fishery, and NMFS intends to monitor this fishery.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.
The information collection for the AD is approved under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 0648-0593.
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 Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on the issuance of the regulations to implement this observer requirement in 50 CFR part 222, subpart D. The EA concluded that implementing these regulations would not have a significant impact on the human environment. This final rule would not make any significant change in the management of fisheries included on the AD; and, therefore, this final rule would not change the analysis or conclusion of the EA. If NMFS takes a management action for a specific fishery, for example, requiring fishing gear modifications, NMFS would first prepare any environmental document required under NEPA and specific to that action.
This final rule would not affect species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA or their
This final rule would have no adverse impacts on sea turtles and may have a positive impact on sea turtles by improving knowledge of sea turtles and the fisheries interacting with sea turtles through information collected from observer programs.
This final rule would not affect the land or water uses or natural resources of the coastal zone, as specified under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; inseason retention limit adjustment.
NMFS is adjusting the commercial aggregated large coastal shark (LCS) and hammerhead shark management group retention limit for directed shark limited access permit holders in the Atlantic region from 25 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip to 3 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip. This action is based on consideration of the regulatory determination criteria regarding inseason adjustments. The retention limit will remain at 3 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip in the Atlantic region through the rest of the 2018 fishing season or until NMFS announces via a notice in the
This retention limit adjustment is effective at 11:30 p.m. local time May 12, 2018, through the end of the 2018 fishing season on December 31, 2018, or until NMFS announces via a notice in the
Lauren Latchford, Guý DuBeck, or Karyl Brewster-Geisz 301-427-8503; fax 301-713-1917.
Atlantic shark fisheries are managed under the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP), its amendments, and implementing regulations (50 CFR part 635) issued under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
Under § 635.24(a)(8), NMFS may adjust the commercial retention limit in the shark fisheries during the fishing season. Before making any adjustment, NMFS must consider specified regulatory criteria and other relevant factors See § 635.24(a)(8)(i)-(vi). After considering these criteria as discussed below, we have concluded that reducing the retention limit of the Atlantic aggregated LCS and hammerhead management groups for directed shark limited access permit holders will slow the fishery catch rates to allow the fishery throughout the Atlantic region to remain open for the rest of the year. Since landings have reached approximately 20 percent of the quota and are projected to reach 80 percent before the end of the 2018 fishing season, NMFS is reducing the commercial Atlantic aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark retention limit from 25 to 3 LCS other than sandbar per vessel per trip.
NMFS considered whether to reduce the retention limit for LCS other than sandbar sharks, considering the inseason retention limit adjustment criteria listed in § 635.24(a)(8), which includes (broken down by bullet points):
• The amount of remaining shark quota in the relevant area, region, or sub-region, to date, based on dealer reports.
Based on dealer reports, 32.7 mt dw or 19 percent of the 168.9 mt dw shark quota for the aggregated LCS management group has already been landed in the Atlantic region. This means that approximately 80 percent of the quota remains. At current landings rates, this quota would be expanded by July. These levels this early in the season indicate that unless action is taken to slow landings, fishermen in the Atlantic region may not have an opportunity to fish in the region for the remainder of the year.
• The catch rates of the relevant shark species/complexes in the region or sub-region, to date, based on dealer reports.
Dealer reports indicate a high level of average daily landings. At this level, aggregated LCS are being harvested too quickly to ensure fishing opportunities throughout the season. If the per trip limit is left unchanged, aggregated LCS would likely be harvested at such a high rate that there would not be enough aggregated LCS quota remaining to keep the fishery open year-round, precluding equitable fishing opportunities for the entire Atlantic region.
• Estimated date of fishery closure based on when the landings are projected to reach 80 percent of the quota given the realized catch rates.
Once the landings reach 80 percent of the quota, NMFS would have to close the aggregated LCS management group as well as the “linked hammerhead shark management group. Current catch rates would likely result in reaching this limit by the beginning of July. A closure so early in the year would preclude fishing opportunities in the Atlantic region for the remainder of the year.
• Effects of the adjustment on accomplishing the objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments.
Reducing the retention limit for the aggregated LCS and hammerhead management group from 25 to 3 LCS per trip would allow for fishing opportunities later in the year consistent with the FMP's objectives to ensure equitable fishing opportunities throughout the fishing season and to limit bycatch and discards.
• Variations in seasonal distribution, abundance, or migratory patterns of the relevant shark species based on scientific and fishery-based knowledge.
The directed shark fisheries in the Atlantic region exhibit a mixed species composition, with a high abundance of aggregated LCS caught in conjunction with hammerhead sharks. As a result, by slowing the harvest and reducing landings on a per-trip basis, both
• Effects of catch rates in one part of a region or sub-region precluding vessels in another part of that region or sub-region from having a reasonable opportunity to harvest a portion of the relevant quota.
Based on dealer reports, and given NMFS' notice to the regulated community (82 FR 55512, November 22, 2017) that a goal of this year's fishery was to ensure fishing opportunities throughout the fishing season, NMFS has concluded that the aggregated LCS quota is being harvested too quickly to meet conservation and management goals for the fishery. If the harvest of these species is not slowed, we estimate that the fishery would close by the beginning of July. Closing the fishery so early would prevent fishermen from other parts of the Atlantic region from having the same opportunities to harvest the aggregated LCS quota later in the year.
On November 22, 2017 (82 FR 55512), NMFS announced that the aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark management groups for the Atlantic region would open on January 1 with a quota of 168.9 metric tons (mt) dressed weight (dw) (372,552 lb dw) and 27.1 mt dw (59,736 lb dw), respectively. In that final rule, NMFS also indicated that if it appeared that the aggregated LCS management group quota is being harvested too quickly, to allow fishermen throughout the entire region an opportunity to fish (
Accordingly, as of 11:30 p.m. local time May 12, 2018, NMFS is reducing the retention limit for the commercial aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark management groups in the Atlantic region for directed shark limited access permit holders from 25 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip to 3 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip. If the vessel is properly permitted to operate as a charter vessel or headboat for HMS and is engaged in a for-hire trip, in which case the recreational retention limits for sharks and “no sale” provisions apply (§ 635.22(a) and (c)), or if the vessel possesses a valid shark research permit under § 635.32 and a NMFS-approved observer is onboard, then they are exempted from the retention limit adjustment.
All other retention limits and shark fisheries in the Atlantic region remain unchanged. This retention limit will remain at 3 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip for the rest of the 2018 fishing season, or until NMFS announces via a notice in the
The boundary between the Gulf of Mexico region and the Atlantic region is defined at § 635.27(b)(1) as a line beginning on the East Coast of Florida at the mainland at 25°20.4′ N. lat, proceeding due East. Any water and land to the north and east of that boundary is considered, for the purposes of quota monitoring and setting of quotas, to be within the Atlantic region.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Providing prior notice and an opportunity for comment is impracticable because the catch and landings that need to be reduced are ongoing and must be reduced immediately to meet conservation and management objectives for the fishery. Continued fishing at those levels during the time that notice and comment takes place would result in the much of the quota being landed and could result in a very early closure of the fishery, contrary to the objectives of the existing conservation and management measures in place for those species. These objectives include ensuring that fishing opportunities are equitable and that bycatch and discards are minimized. Allowing fishing to continue at the existing rates even for a limited time is contrary to these objectives and would thus be impracticable. It would also be contrary to the public interest because, if the quota continues to be caught at the current levels, the quota will not last throughout the remainder of the fishing season and a large number of fishermen would be denied the opportunity to land sharks from the quota. Furthermore, continued catch at the current rates, even for a limited period, could result in eventual quota overharvests, since it is still so early in the fishing year. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for the same reasons. This action is required under § 635.28(b)(2) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. NMFS has concluded that reducing the retention limit of the Atlantic aggregated LCS and hammerhead management groups for directed shark limited access permit holders will slow the fishery catch rates to allow the fishery throughout the Atlantic region to remain open for the rest of the year.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
The International, Public Safety and Homeland Security, and Wireless Telecommunications Bureaus (Bureaus) of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announce a temporary freeze, effective April 19, 2018, on the filing of new or modification applications for fixed-satellite service (FSS) earth station licenses, receive-only earth station registrations, and fixed microwave licenses in the 3.7-4.2 GHz frequency band. As a limited exception to the freeze, the International Bureau concurrently opens a 90-day window during which entities that own or operate existing FSS earth stations in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band may file an application to register or license the earth station if it is currently not registered or licensed, or may file an application to modify a current registration or license, in the International Bureau Filing System (IBFS).
Temporary freeze effective April 19, 2018; the 90-day filing window closes on July 18, 2018.
Christopher Bair, 202-418-0945 or Paul Blais, 202-418-7274.
This is a summary of the Commission's document, DA 18-398, released April 19, 2018. The full text of this document is available at
Applicants for earth station licenses and registrations must file on FCC Form 312 Main Form, complete Form 312 Schedule B, remit the statutory application-filing fee, and provide any additional information required by applicable rules. Applications must be filed electronically through IBFS at
This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Federal Communications Commission.
Notification of public meeting.
The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on the subjects listed below in
The meeting will take place on Thursday, May 10, 2018, and is scheduled to commence at 10:30 a.m..
The location of the meeting is Room TW-C305, at 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC.
Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the internet from the FCC Live web page at
Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from the Office of Media Relations, (202) 418-0500; TTY 1-888-835-5322. Contact Marlene Dortch, 202 418-0330 for information about this document.
The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. In your request, include a description of the accommodation you will need and a way we can contact you if we need more information. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an email to:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS seeks comments on this proposed rule issued under authority of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (WCPFC Implementation Act). The proposed rule would implement recent decisions of the Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPFC or Commission). These decisions include the following management measures: limits on fishing effort by U.S. purse seine vessels in the U.S. exclusive economic zone and on the high seas between the latitudes of 20° N and 20° S in the area of application of the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Convention); restrictions regarding the use of fish aggregating devices (FADs) for U.S. purse seine fishing vessels; limits on the catches of bigeye tuna by U.S. longline vessels in the Convention area; prohibitions on U.S. vessels used to fish for highly migratory species from engaging in transshipment in a particular area of the high seas (the Eastern High Seas Special Management Area or EHSSMA); and removal of existing reporting requirements for vessels transiting the EHSSMA. The rule also would make corrections to outdated cross references in existing regulatory text. This action is necessary to satisfy the obligations of the United States under the Convention, to which it is a Contracting Party.
Comments on the proposed rule must be submitted in writing by May 25, 2018.
You may submit comments on the proposed rule and the regulatory impact review (RIR) prepared for the proposed rule, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0050, by either of the following methods:
•
1. Go to
2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and
3. Enter or attach your comments.
—OR—
•
An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) prepared under authority of the Regulatory Flexibility Act is included in the Classification section of the
Copies of the RIR, the 2015 programmatic environmental assessment, and 2012 environmental assessment prepared for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) purposes are available at
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to PIRO at the address listed above and by email to
Rini Ghosh, NMFS PIRO, 808-725-5033.
The Convention focused on the conservation and management of fisheries for highly migratory species (HMS). The objective of the Convention is to ensure, through effective management, the long-term conservation and sustainable use of HMS in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO). To accomplish this objective, the Convention established the Commission, which includes Members, Cooperating Non-members, and Participating Territories (collectively referred to here as “members”). The United States of America is a Member. American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) are Participating Territories.
As a Contracting Party to the Convention and a Member of the Commission, the United States implements, as appropriate, conservation and management measures and other decisions adopted by the Commission. The WCPFC Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 6901
This proposed rule would implement specific provisions of two recent WCPFC decisions. The first decision, Conservation and Management Measure (CMM) 2017-01, “Conservation and Management Measure for Bigeye,
CMM 2017-01 is the latest in a series of CMMs devoted to the conservation and management of tropical tuna stocks, particularly stocks of bigeye tuna (
In order to achieve that stated purpose, CMM 2017-01 includes provisions for longline and purse seine vessels that would be implemented in this proposed rule. For longline vessels, the CMM includes specific bigeye tuna catch limits for several WCPFC members, including the United States. The CMM provides for a limit of 3,554 metric tons (mt) of bigeye tuna that may be caught by U.S. longline vessels fishing in the Convention Area for calendar year 2018, which is the same as the U.S. limit in 2016, as specified in earlier WCPFC decisions. As in previous WCPFC CMMs on tropical tunas, CMM 2017-01 also requires any overage of the catch limit to be deducted from the following year's limit.
Also as in previous CMMs, no limits apply to the longline fisheries of the U.S. Participating Territories of American Samoa, Guam, and CNMI. In addition, CMM 2017-01 includes a new provision for U.S. longline vessels, stating that catch and effort of U.S.-flagged vessels operating under agreements with the U.S. Participating Territories shall be attributed to the U.S. Participating Territories.
For purse seine vessels, CMM 2017-01 includes several restrictions on the use of FADs and provides for specific limits on fishing effort.
The first FAD restriction is similar to the one included in previous WCPFC decisions and requires purse seine vessels to be prohibited from fishing on FADs on the high seas and in the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) in the Convention Area between the latitudes of 20° N and 20° S from July 1 through September 30 of 2018. The second FAD restriction requires WCPFC members to establish an additional consecutive two-month FAD prohibition period on the high seas in the Convention Area in 2018, in either April and May or November and December. CMM 2017-01 also includes provisions encouraging WCPFC members to use non-entangling design and materials as well as biodegradable materials in the construction of FADs. Finally, CMM 2017-01 includes a provision requiring that each purse seine vessel have no more than 350 drifting FADs with activated instrumented buoys deployed at sea in the Convention Area at any one time through February 10, 2021. Under the CMM, an instrumented buoy is defined as a buoy with a clearly marked reference number allowing its identification and equipped with a satellite tracking system to monitor its position. The CMM states that the buoy shall be activated exclusively on board the vessel.
Under CMM 2017-01, WCPFC members must also limit their purse seine vessels to specific fishing effort limits. The limits on U.S. purse seine fishing effort detailed in CMM 2017-01 are similar to limits in previous WCPFC decisions. The limits are 558 fishing days in the U.S. EEZ and 1,270 fishing days on the high seas in the Convention Area between the latitudes of 20° N and 20° S for each of the calendar years 2018-2020. However, CMM 2017-01 also includes a new provision for 2018 only that allows the United States to transfer 100 fishing days from its limit in the U.S. EEZ to its limit on the high seas, and if the U.S. EEZ limit is reached by October 1, 2018, the U.S. EEZ limit will be increased by an additional 100 fishing days, with the expectation that the catch taken by U.S. flagged vessels and landed in American Samoa for the American Samoa canneries is no less than the volume landed in 2017 plus an additional 3,500 short tonnes. This new provision was intended to alleviate the economic hardship faced by American Samoa and its canneries when U.S. purse seine fishing limits are reached, resulting in fishery closures.
CMM 2017-01 also includes provisions for purse seine vessels that were in previous WCPFC decisions and that have been implemented by NMFS in regulations that continue in force. These provisions include requirements for purse seine vessels to retain all catch of bigeye tuna, yellowfin tuna, and skipjack tuna, for observer coverage on purse seine vessels, and for vessel monitoring system requirements for purse seine vessels during the FAD closure periods.
The elements of the proposed rule are detailed below. The administrative changes that would be made to correct outdated references in existing regulatory text are described at the end.
As described above, some of the provisions in CMM 2017-01 apply only to calendar year 2018, while others are applicable until February 10, 2021. Because the Commission likely will continue to implement similar management measures regarding FADs, purse seine effort limits, and longline bigeye tuna catch limits beyond 2018, and to avoid a lapse in the management of the fishery, NMFS is proposing to implement all of the elements of CMM 2017-01 in this proposed rule under the authority of the WCPFC Implementation Act, 16 U.S.C. 6904(a), so that they will remain effective until they are replaced or amended. Because the Commission developed CMM 2017-01 as generally a three-year conservation and management measure (2018-2020), the supporting analyses for this rule covers a three-year time period, understanding that these analyses would need to be supplemented should the elements of the rule remain effective for more than three years.
The Commission-adopted longline bigeye tuna catch limit for the United States for 2018 is 3,554 mt. As stated above, CMM 2017-01 reiterates the provision of earlier CMMs that states that any catch overage in a given year shall be deducted from the catch limit for the following year. The longline bigeye tuna catch limit for the United States in 2017 was 3,138 mt (see Interim Rule; 82 FR 36341, published August 4, 2017). Based on preliminary estimates, NMFS believes that the 2017 limit might have been exceeded, but the amount of the overage, if it occurred, is not yet known. Thus, NMFS is proposing a calendar year catch limit of 3,554 mt that would remain effective until replaced. However, for 2018, it is possible that this limit would be adjusted downward to account for any overage in 2017; the limit would similarly be adjusted downward in future years, should any overages occur. NMFS will determine the exact amount of the overage prior to publication of the final rule and include the exact amount of the 2018 limit in the final rule.
The calendar year longline bigeye tuna catch limit will apply only to U.S.-flagged longline vessels operating as part of the U.S. longline fisheries. The limit will not apply to U.S. longline vessels operating as part of the longline fisheries of American Samoa, CNMI, or Guam. Existing regulations at 50 CFR 300.224(b), (c), and (d) detail the manner in which longline-caught bigeye tuna is attributed among the fisheries of the United States and the U.S. Participating Territories.
Consistent with the basis for the limits prescribed in CMM 2017-01 and with regulations issued by NMFS to implement bigeye tuna catch limits in U.S. longline fisheries as described below, the catch limit is measured in terms of retained catches—that is, bigeye tuna that are caught by longline gear and retained on board the vessel.
As set forth under the existing regulations at 50 CFR 300.224(e), if NMFS determines that the limit is expected to be reached in a calendar year, NMFS will publish a notice in the
As set forth under the existing regulations at 50 CFR 300.224(f), if the limit is reached, the restrictions that will be in effect will include the following:
First, any bigeye tuna already on board a fishing vessel upon the effective date of the restrictions can be retained on board, transshipped, and/or landed, provided that they are landed within 14 days after the restrictions become effective. A vessel that had declared to NMFS pursuant to 50 CFR 665.803(a) that the current trip type is shallow-setting is not subject to this 14-day landing restriction, so these vessels will be able to land bigeye tuna more than 14 days after the restrictions become effective.
Second, bigeye tuna captured by longline gear can be retained on board, transshipped, and/or landed if they are caught by a fishing vessel registered for use under a valid American Samoa Longline Limited Access Permit, or if they are landed in American Samoa, Guam, or CNMI. However, the bigeye tuna must not be caught in the portion of the U.S. EEZ surrounding the Hawaiian Archipelago, and must be landed by a U.S. fishing vessel operated in compliance with a valid permit issued under 50 CFR 660.707 or 665.801.
Third, bigeye tuna captured by longline gear can be retained on board, transshipped, and/or landed if they are caught by a vessel that is included in a specified fishing agreement under 50 CFR 665.819(d), in accordance with 50 CFR 300.224(f)(iv).
In accordance with CMM 2017-01, NMFS proposes to establish a FAD prohibition period from July through September in each calendar year in the Convention Area between the latitudes of 20° N and 20° S (inclusive of the EEZs and high seas in the Convention Area). Regarding the additional consecutive two-month FAD prohibition period on the high seas in the Convention Area, after considering the objectives of CMM 2017-01, the expected economic impacts on U.S. fishing operations and the nation as a whole, and expected environmental and other effects, NMFS expects that a high seas FAD prohibition period in November and December may be somewhat more cost-effective than a FAD prohibition period in April and May. For this reason, NMFS is proposing to implement the high seas FAD prohibition period in November and December for each calendar year. We specifically seek public comment on which option is more appropriate. A comparison of the two options' expected direct economic impacts on affected fishing businesses is provided in the RIR.
As currently defined in 50 CFR 300.211, a FAD is “any artificial or natural floating object, whether anchored or not and whether situated at the water surface or not, that is capable of aggregating fish, as well as any object used for that purpose that is situated on board a vessel or otherwise out of the water. The definition of FAD does not include a vessel.” Under this proposed rule, the regulatory definition of a FAD would not change. Although the definition of a FAD does not include a vessel, the restrictions during the FAD
The prohibitions applicable to these proposed FAD-related measures are in existing regulations at 50 CFR 300.223(b)(1)(i)-(v). Specifically, during the July-September FAD prohibition periods in each calendar year, and on the high seas in November and December, owners, operators, and crew of fishing vessels of the United States equipped with purse seine gear shall not do any of the following activities in the Convention Area in the area between 20° N latitude and 20° S latitude:
(1) Set a purse seine around a FAD or within one nautical mile of a FAD;
(2) Set a purse seine in a manner intended to capture fish that have aggregated in association with a FAD or a vessel, such as by setting the purse seine in an area from which a FAD or a vessel has been moved or removed within the previous eight hours, setting the purse seine in an area in which a FAD has been inspected or handled within the previous eight hours, or setting the purse seine in an area into which fish were drawn by a vessel from the vicinity of a FAD or a vessel;
(3) Deploy a FAD into the water;
(4) Repair, clean, maintain, or otherwise service a FAD, including any electronic equipment used in association with a FAD, in the water or on a vessel while at sea, except that a FAD may be inspected and handled as needed to identify the FAD, identify and release incidentally captured animals, un-foul fishing gear, or prevent damage to property or risk to human safety; and a FAD may be removed from the water and if removed may be cleaned, provided that it is not returned to the water.
(5) From a purse seine vessel or any associated skiffs, other watercraft or equipment, submerge lights under water; suspend or hang lights over the side of the purse seine vessel, skiff, watercraft or equipment, or direct or use lights in a manner other than as needed to illuminate the deck of the purse seine vessel or associated skiffs, watercraft or equipment, to comply with navigational requirements, and to ensure the health and safety of the crew. These prohibitions would not apply during emergencies as needed to prevent human injury or the loss of human life, the loss of the purse seine vessel, skiffs, watercraft or aircraft, or environmental damage.
This proposed rule would revise the introductory paragraph of 50 CFR 300.223(b)(1) to make it more clear that the prohibitions apply only to owners, operators, and crew of purse seine fishing vessels. NMFS has recently received inquiries as to whether the prohibitions apply to the owners, operators, and crew of vessels using other gear types. This proposed rule would also make a technical change to 50 CFR 300.223(b)(1)(iv)(B) to clarify that, during the FAD prohibition periods, a FAD may be removed from the water to be repaired, cleaned, maintained, or otherwise serviced, provided that it is not returned to the water. This minor change ensures consistency with the introductory language in that paragraph.
NMFS has recently issued final regulations to implement provisions of a resolution adopted by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) that includes restrictions on the number of FADs with activated instrumented buoys for each purse seine vessel deployed at sea in the IATTC area at any one time (see Final Rule; 83 FR 15503, published April 11, 2018). In order to provide some consistency to the regulated community, NMFS is proposing similar regulations in this rule to implement the limit regarding FADs with activated instrumented buoys specified in CMM 2017-01.
Under the proposed rule, an active FAD is defined as a FAD that is equipped with a buoy with a clearly marked reference number allowing its identification and equipped with a satellite tracking system to monitor its position, as specified by the definition of instrumented buoy in CMM 2017-01.
CMM 2017-01 specifies that the buoy shall be activated exclusively on board the vessel. In order to implement this provision, the proposed rule specifies that the tracking equipment must be turned on while the FAD is onboard the vessel and before it is deployed in the water. In accordance with CMM 2017-01, under the proposed rule, each U.S. purse seine vessel would have a limit of 350 active drifting FADs in the Convention Area at any one time.
In the past, NMFS has implemented the U.S. purse seine fishing effort limits on the high seas and in the U.S. EEZ adopted by the Commission as a single combined limit in a combined area of the high seas and U.S. EEZ termed the Effort Limit Area for Purse Seine or ELAPS. NMFS' reasoning for combining the high seas and U.S. EEZ limits was that it afforded more operational flexibility to the fleet and there are no substantial differences in terms of effects to living marine resources for treating the two areas separately or combined so long as the overall effort remained equal or less than the sum of the two limits. For this proposed rule, in light of CMM 2017-01's provision allowing the United States to transfer some of its EEZ days to the high seas, there is a need to separately account for the U.S. high seas limit and the U.S. EEZ limit. Thus, NMFS will no longer combine the two limits under a single limit. As stated above, CMM 2017-01 specifies a limit of 1,270 fishing days per year for the high seas and a limit of 558 fishing days per year for the U.S. EEZ. The proposed rule would establish a limit of 1,370 fishing days on the high seas and a separate limit of 458 fishing days in the U.S. EEZ. These numbers utilize the provision of CMM 2017-01 provided to alleviate the economic hardship experienced by American Samoa during a fishery closure and transfer 100 fishing days from the U.S. EEZ effort limit to the high seas effort limit.
CMM 2017-01 also specifies that the United States may add an additional 100 fishing days to its annual purse seine fishing effort limit in the U.S. EEZ if the limit in the U.S. EEZ is reached by October 1, 2018. As discussed above, NMFS is proposing to to implement the elements of the rule so they are effective until they are amended or replaced. Thus, under the proposed rule, when NMFS expects that the U.S. EEZ effort limit would be reached by October 1, NMFS would publish a notice in the
The meaning of “fishing day” is defined at 50 CFR 300.211; that is, any day in which a fishing vessel of the United States equipped with purse seine gear searches for fish, deploys a FAD, services a FAD, or sets a purse seine, with the exception of setting a purse seine solely for the purpose of testing or cleaning the gear and resulting in no catch.
NMFS will monitor the number of fishing days spent in the U.S. EEZ and on the high seas using data submitted in logbooks and other available information. If and when NMFS determines that a limit is expected to be reached by a specific future date, it will publish a notice in the
Under existing regulations at 50 CFR 300.218(g), NMFS can direct U.S. purse seine vessel owners and operators to provide daily FAD reports, specifying the number of purse seine sets made on FADs during that day. NMFS promulgated this regulation to help track a limit on the number of FAD sets that was applicable in previous years but recognizes that this information is also valuable to help predict when a fishing effort limit is expected to be reached with greater certainty. Thus, under this proposed rule, NMFS would revise the existing regulations so that NMFS can direct U.S. purse seine vessel owners and operators to provide reports on the fishing activity of the vessel (
This proposed rule would remove the requirements at 50 CFR 300.222(oo) and 50 CFR 300.225 for U.S. commercial fishing vessels to provide reports prior to entering or exiting the EHSSMA. This proposed rule would also prohibit all U.S. commercial fishing vessels fishing for HMS from engaging in transshipments in the EHSSMA, beginning on January 1, 2019.
The regulations at 50 CFR 300.217(b) and 300.218(a)(2)(v) contain outdated cross references that would be corrected by this proposed rule. In § 300.217, paragraph (b)(1) would be revised to provide a cross reference to § 300.336(b)(2), not § 300.14(b), and in § 300.218(a)(2)(v), the cross reference would be to § 300.341(a) instead of to § 300.17(a) and (b). Sections 300.14(b) and 300.17(a) and (b) no longer exist and have been replaced through a new regulatory action implementing provisions of the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act (16 U.S.C. 5501
The Administrator, Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the WCPFC Implementation Act and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment. Section 304(b) of the MSA provides for a 15 day comment period for these types of fishery rules. Additionally, NMFS finds “good cause” under the Administrative Procedure Act that a longer notice and comment period would be contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). As described above, the first FAD prohibition period would begin on July 1, 2018. Providing for more than 15 days advance notice and public comment on the proposed rule increases the risk that the Commission's FAD prohibition period will become effective prior to the effective date of the final rule, possibly resulting in the United States' non-compliance with its international obligations. Thus, in order to provide the public with the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule while ensuring that the agency has sufficient time to consider any public comments and publish a final rule that is effective by July 1, 2018, NMFS is providing the public with a 15-day comment period on this proposed rule.
NMFS determined that this action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the approved coastal management program of American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Guam, and the State of Hawaii. Determinations to Hawaii and each of the Territories were submitted on March 12, 2018, for review by the responsible state and territorial agencies under section 307 of the CZMA.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this proposed rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the RFA. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered as well as its objectives, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the
For Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 114111) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.
The proposed rule would apply to owners and operators of U.S. commercial fishing vessels used to fish for HMS in the Convention Area, including longline vessels (except those operating as part of the longline fisheries of American Samoa, CNMI, or Guam), purse seine vessels, and albacore troll vessels. Based on the number of U.S. vessels with WCPFC Area Endorsements, which are required to fish on the high seas in the Convention Area, the estimated numbers of affected longline, purse seine, and albacore troll fishing vessels is 163, 37, and 20, respectively.
Based on limited financial information about the affected fishing fleets, and using individual vessels as proxies for individual businesses, NMFS believes that all of the affected longline and albacore troll vessels, and slightly more than half of the vessels in the purse seine fleet, are small entities as defined by the RFA; that is, they are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their fields of operation, and have annual receipts of no more than $11.0 million. Within the purse seine fleet, analysis of average revenue, by vessel, for the three years of 2014-2016 reveals that average annual revenue among vessels in the fleet was about $10.2 million, and the three-year annual averages were less than the $11 million threshold for 22 vessels in the fleet.
The reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of this proposed rule are described earlier in the preamble. The classes of small entities subject to the requirements and
This element of the proposed rule would not establish any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements. The new compliance requirement would be for affected vessel owners and operators to cease retaining, landing, and transshipping bigeye tuna caught with longline gear in the Convention Area if and when the bigeye tuna catch limit of 3,554 mt (reduced by the amount of any overages in the preceding year) is reached in any of the years 2018-2020, for the remainder of the calendar year, subject to the exceptions and provisos described in other sections of this
Fulfillment of this requirement is not expected to require any professional skills that the vessel owners and operators do not already possess. The costs of complying with this requirement are described below to the extent possible.
Complying with this element of the proposed rule could cause foregone fishing opportunities and result in associated economic losses in the event that the bigeye tuna catch limit is reached in any of the years 2018-2020 and the restrictions on retaining, landing, and transshipping bigeye tuna are imposed for portions of those years. These costs cannot be projected quantitatively with any certainty. The proposed annual limit of 3,554 mt can be compared to catches in 2005-2008, before limits were in place. The average annual catch in that period was 4,709 mt. Based on that history, as well as fishing patterns in 2009-2016, when limits were in place, there appears to be a relatively high likelihood of the proposed limits being reached in 2018-2020. In 2015, for example, which saw exceptionally high catches of bigeye tuna, the limit of 3,502 mt was estimated to have been reached by, and the fishery was closed on, August 5 (see temporary rule published July 28, 2015; 80 FR 44883). The fishery was subsequently re-opened for vessels included in agreements with the governments of the CNMI and Guam under regulations implementing Amendment 7 to the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (Pelagics FEP) (50 CFR 665.819). In 2016, the limit of 3,554 mt was estimated to have been reached by September 9, 2016, and in 2017, the limit of 3,138 mt was estimated to have been reached by September 1, 2017. Thus, if bigeye tuna catch patterns in 2018-2020 are like those in 2005-2008, the limit would be reached in the fourth quarter of the year, and if they are like those in 2015, 2016, or 2017, the limit would be reached in the third quarter of the year.
If the bigeye tuna limit is reached before the end of any of the years 2018-2020 and the Convention Area longline bigeye tuna fishery is consequently closed for the remainder of the calendar year, it can be expected that affected vessels would shift to the next most profitable fishing opportunity (which might be not fishing at all). Revenues from that next best alternative activity reflect the opportunity costs associated with longline fishing for bigeye tuna in the Convention Area. The economic cost of the proposed rule would not be the direct losses in revenues that would result from not being able to fish for bigeye tuna in the Convention Area, but rather the difference in benefits derived from that activity and those derived from the next best activity. The economic cost of the proposed rule on affected entities is examined here by first estimating the direct losses in revenues that would result from not being able to fish for bigeye tuna in the Convention Area as a result of the catch limit being reached. Those losses represent the upper bound of the economic cost of the proposed rule on affected entities. Potential next-best alternative activities that affected entities could undertake are then identified in order to provide a (mostly qualitative) description of the degree to which actual costs would be lower than that upper bound.
Upper bounds on potential economic costs can be estimated by examining the projected value of longline landings from the Convention Area that would not be made as a result of reaching the limit. For this purpose, it is assumed that, absent this proposed rule, bigeye tuna catches in the Convention Area in each of the years 2018-2020 would be 5,000 mt, slightly more than the average in 2005-2008. Under this scenario, imposition of annual limits of 3,554 mt would result in 29 percent less bigeye tuna being caught each year than under no action. In the deep-set fishery, catches of marketable species other than bigeye tuna would likely be affected in a similar way if vessels do not shift to alternative activities. Assuming for the moment that ex-vessel prices would not be affected by a fishery closure, under the proposed rule, revenues in 2018-2020 to entities that participate exclusively in the deep-set fishery would be approximately 29 percent less than under no action. Average annual ex-vessel revenues (from all species) per mt of bigeye tuna caught during 2005-2008 were about $14,190/mt (in 2014 dollars, derived from the latest available annual report on the pelagic fisheries of the western Pacific Region (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, 2014, Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region: 2012 Annual Report. Honolulu, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council)). If there are 128 active vessels in the fleet, as there were during 2005-2008, on average, then under the no-action scenario of fleet-wide anual catches of 5,000 mt, each vessel would catch 39 mt/yr, on average. Reductions of 29 percent in 2018-2020 as a result of the proposed limits would be about 11 mt per year. Applying the average ex-vessel revenues (from all species) of $14,190 per mt of bigeye tuna caught, the reductions in ex-vessel revenue per vessel would be $160,000 per year, on average.
In the shallow-set fishery, affected entities would bear limited costs in the event of the limit being reached (but most affected entities also participate in the deep-set fishery and might bear costs in that fishery, as described below). The cost would be about equal to the revenues lost from not being able to retain or land bigeye tuna captured while shallow-setting in the Convention Area, or the cost of shifting to shallow-setting in the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO), which is to the east of 150 degrees W longitude, whichever is less. In the fourth calendar quarters of 2005-2008, almost all shallow-setting effort took place in the EPO, and 97 percent of bigeye tuna catches were made there, so the cost of a bigeye tuna fishery closure to shallow-setting vessels would appear to be very limited. During 2005-2008, the shallow-set fishery caught an average of 54 mt of bigeye tuna per year from the Convention Area. If the proposed bigeye tuna catch limit is reached even as early as July 31 in any of the years 2018-2020, the Convention Area shallow-set fishery would have caught at that point, based on 2005-2008 data, on average, 99 percent of its average annual bigeye tuna catches. Imposition of the landings restriction at
It should be noted that the impacts on affected entities' profits would be less than impacts on revenues when considering the costs of operating vessels, because costs would be lower if a vessel ceases fishing after the catch limit is reached. Variable costs can be expected to be affected roughly in proportion to revenues, as both variable costs and revenues would stop accruing once a vessel stops fishing. But affected entities' costs also include fixed costs, which are borne regardless of whether a vessel is used to fish—
As stated previously, actual compliance costs for a given entity might be less than the upper bounds described above, because ceasing fishing would not necessarily be the most profitable alternative opportunity when the catch limit is reached. Two alternative opportunities that are expected to be attractive to affected entities include: (1) Deep-set longline fishing for bigeye tuna in the Convention Area in a manner such that the vessel is considered part of the longline fishery of American Samoa, Guam, or the CNMI; and (2) deep-set longline fishing for bigeye tuna and other species in the EPO. These two opportunities are discussed in detail below. Four additional opportunities are: (3) Shallow-set longline fishing for swordfish (for deep-setting vessels that would not otherwise do so), (4) deep-set longline fishing in the Convention Area for species other than bigeye tuna, (5) working in cooperation with vessels operating as part of the longline fisheries of the Participating Territories—specifically, receiving transshipments at sea from them and delivering the fish to the Hawaii market, and (6) vessel repair and maintenance. A study by NMFS of the effects of the WCPO bigeye tuna longline fishery closure in 2010 (Richmond, L., D. Kotowicz, J. Hospital and S. Allen, 2015, Monitoring socioeconomic impacts of Hawai`i's 2010 bigeye tuna closure: Complexities of local management in a global fishery, Ocean & Coastal Management 106:87-96) did not identify the occurrence of any alternative activities that vessels engaged in during the closure, other than deep-setting for bigeye tuna in the EPO, vessel maintenance and repairs, and granting lengthy vacations to employees. Based on those findings, NMFS expects that alternative opportunities (3), (4), (5) and (6) are probably unattractive relative to the first two alternatives, and are not discussed here in any further detail. NMFS recognizes that vessel maintenance and repairs and granting lengthy vacations to employees are two alternative activities that might be taken advantage of if the fishery is closed, but no further analysis of their mitigating effects is provided here.
Before examining in detail the two potential alternative fishing opportunities that would appear to be the most attractive to affected entities, it is important to note that under the proposed rule, once the limit is reached and the WCPO bigeye tuna fishery is closed, fishing with longline gear both inside and outside the Convention Area during the same trip would be prohibited (except in the case of a fishing trip that is in progress when the limit is reached and the restrictions go into effect). For example, after the restrictions go into effect, during a given fishing trip, a vessel could be used for longline fishing for bigeye tuna in the EPO or for longline fishing for species other than bigeye tuna in the Convention Area, but not for both. This reduced operational flexibility would bring costs, because it would constrain the potential profits from alternative opportunities. Those costs cannot be quantified.
A vessel could take advantage of the first alternative opportunity (deep-setting for bigeye tuna in a manner such that the vessel is considered part of the longline fishery of one of the three U.S. Participating Territories), by three possible methods: (a) Landing the bigeye tuna in one of the three Participating Territories, (b) holding an American Samoa Longline Limited Access Permit, or (c) being considered part of a Participating Territory's longline fishery, by agreement with one or more of the three Participating Territories under the regulations implementing Amendment 7 to the Pelagics FEP (50 CFR 665.819). In the first two circumstances, the vessel would be considered part of the longline fishery of the Participating Territory only if the bigeye tuna were not caught in the portion of the U.S. EEZ around the Hawaiian Islands and were landed by a U.S. vessel operating in compliance with a permit issued under the regulations implementing the Pelagics FEP or the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species.
With respect to the first method of engaging in alternative opportunity 1 (1.a.) (landing the bigeye tuna in one of the Participating Territories), there are three potentially important constraints. First, whether the fish are landed by the vessel that caught the fish or by a vessel to which the fish were transshipped, the costs of a vessel transiting from the traditional fishing grounds in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Archipelago to one of the Participating Territories would be substantial. Second, none of these three locales has large local consumer markets to absorb substantial additional landings of fresh sashimi-grade bigeye tuna. Third, transporting the bigeye tuna from these locales to larger markets, such as markets in Hawaii, the U.S. west coast, or Japan, would bring substantial additional costs and risks. These cost constraints suggest that this alternative opportunity has limited potential to mitigate the economic impacts of the proposed rule on affected small entities.
The second method of engaging in the first alternative opportunity (1.b.) (having an American Samoa Longline Limited Access Permit), would be available only to the subset of the Hawaii longline fleet that has both Hawaii and American Samoa longline permits (dual permit vessels). Vessels that do not have both permits could obtain them if they meet the eligibility requirements and pay the required costs. For example, the number of dual permit vessels increased from 12 in 2009, when the first WCPO bigeye tuna catch limit was established, to 23 in 2016. The previously cited NMFS study of the 2010 fishery closure (Richmond
The third method of engaging in the first alternative opportunity (1.c.) (entering into an Amendment 7 agreement), was also available in 2011-2017 (in 2011-2013, under section 113(a) of Public Law 112-55, 125 Stat. 552
The second alternative opportunity (2) (deep-set fishing for bigeye tuna in the EPO), would be an option for affected entities only if it is allowed under regulations implementing the decisions of the IATTC. NMFS has issued a final rule to implement the IATTC's most recent resolution on the management of tropical tuna stocks (83 FR 15503; April 11, 2018). The final rule establishes an annual limit of 750 mt on the catch of bigeye tuna in the EPO by vessels at least 24m in length in each of the years 2018-2020. Annual longline bigeye tuna catch limits have been in place for the EPO in most years since 2004. Since 2009, when the limit was 500 mt, it was reached in 2013 (November 11), 2014 (October 31), and 2015 (August 12). In 2016 NMFS forecasted that the limit would be reached July 25 and subsequently closed the fishery, but later determined that the catch limit had not been reached and re-opened the fishery on October 4, 2016 (81 FR 69717). The limit was not reached in 2017.
The highly seasonal nature of bigeye tuna catches in the EPO and the relatively high inter-annual variation in catches prevents NMFS from making a useful prediction of whether and when the EPO limits in 2018-2020 are likely to be reached. If it is reached, this alternative opportunity would not be available for large longline vessels, which constitute about a quarter of the fleet.
Historical fishing patterns can provide an indication of the likelihood of affected entities making use of the opportunity of deep-setting in the EPO in the event of a closure in the WCPO. The proportion of the U.S. fishery's annual bigeye tuna catches that were captured in the EPO from 2005 through 2008 ranged from 2 percent to 22 percent, and averaged 11 percent. In 2005-2007, that proportion ranged from 2 percent to 11 percent, and may have been constrained by the IATTC-adoped bigeye tuna catch limits established by NMFS (no limit was in place for 2008). Prior to 2009, most of the U.S. annual bigeye tuna catch by longline vessels in the EPO typically was made in the second and third quarters of the year; in 2005-2008 the percentages caught in the first, second, third, and fourth quarters were 14, 33, 50, and 3 percent, respectively. These data demonstrate two historical patterns—that relatively little of the bigeye tuna catch in the longline fishery was typically taken in the EPO (11 percent in 2005-2008, on average), and that most EPO bigeye tuna catches were made in the second and third quarters, with relatively few catches in the fourth quarter when the proposed catch limit would most likely be reached. These two patterns suggest that there could be substantial costs for at least some affected entities that shift to deep-set fishing in the EPO in the event of a closure in the WCPO. On the other hand, fishing patterns since 2008 suggest that a substantial shift in deep-set fishing effort to the EPO could occur. In 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 the proportions of the fishery's annual bigeye tuna catches that were captured in the EPO were about 16, 27, 23, 19, 36, 35, 47, and 36 percent, respectively, and most bigeye tuna catches in the EPO were made in the latter half of the calendar years.
The NMFS study of the 2010 closure (Richmond
In addition to affecting the volume of landings of bigeye tuna and other species, the proposed catch limits could affect fish prices, particularly during a fishery closure. Both increases and decreases appear possible. After a limit is reached and landings from the WCPO are prohibited, ex-vessel prices of bigeye tuna (
Conversely, a WCPO bigeye tuna fishery closure could cause a decrease in ex-vessel prices of bigeye tuna and other products landed by affected entities if the interruption in the local supply prompts the Hawaii market to shift to alternative (
The potential economic effects identified above would vary among individual business entities, but it is not
The fleet's behavior in 2011 and 2012 is illustrative. In both those years, most vessels in the Hawaii fleet were included in a section 113(a) arrangement with the government of American Samoa, and as a consequence, the U.S. longline catch limit was not reached in either year. Thus, none of the vessels in the fleet, including those not included in the section 113(a) arrangements, were prohibited from fishing for bigeye tuna in the Convention Area at any time during those two years. The fleet's experience in 2010 (before opportunities under section 113(a) or Amendment 7 to the Pelagics FEP were available) provides another example of how economic impacts could be distributed among different entities. In 2010 the limit was reached and the WCPO bigeye tuna fishery was closed on November 22. As described above, dual permit vessels were able to continue fishing outside the U.S. EEZ around the Hawaiian Archipelago and benefit from the relatively high ex-vessel prices that bigeye tuna fetched during the closure.
In summary, based on potential reductions in ex-vessel revenues, NMFS has estimated that the upper bound of potential economic impacts of the proposed rule on affected longline fishing entities could be roughly $160,000 per vessel per year, on average. The actual impacts to most entities are likely to be substantially less than those upper bounds, and for some entities the impacts could be neutral or positive (
This element of the proposed rule would not establish any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements. The new requirement would be for affected vessel owners and operators to comply with the FAD restrictions described earlier in the
Fulfillment of the element's requirements is not expected to require any professional skills that the vessel owners and operators do not already possess. The costs of complying with the requirements are described below to the extent possible.
The proposed FAD restrictions would substantially constrain the manner in which purse seine fishing could be conducted in the specified areas and periods in the Convention Area; in those areas and during those periods, vessels would be able to set only on free, or “unassociated,” schools.
With respect to the three-month FAD closure throughout the Convention Area: Assuming that sets would be evenly distributed through the year, the number of annual FAD sets would be expected to be about three-fourths the number that would occur without a seasonal FAD closure. For example, during 2014-2016, the proportion of all sets that were made on FADs when FAD setting was allowed was 50 percent. As an indicative example, if the fleet makes 8,000 sets in a given year (somewhat more than the 2014-2016 average of 7,420 sets per year) and 50 percent of those are FAD sets, it would make 4,000 FAD sets. If there is a three-month closure and 50 percent of the sets outside the closure are FAD sets, and sets are evenly distributed throughout each year, the annual number of FAD sets would be 3,000. This can be compared to the estimated 2,494 annual FAD sets that were made in 2014-2016, on average, when there were three-month FAD closures.
With respect to the two-month high seas FAD closure: The effects of this element are difficult to predict. If the high seas are closed to all purse seine fishing during November-December as a result of the fishing effort limit being reached, the high seas FAD closure during those two months would have no additional effect whatsoever. If the high seas are not closed to fishing, the prohibition on FAD setting would make the high seas less favorable for fishing than they otherwise would be, because only unassociated sets would be allowed there. It is not possible to characterize how influential that factor would be, however. Thus, it is not possible to predict the effects in terms of the spatial distribution of fishing effort or the proportion of fishing effort that is made on FADs.
With respect to both the three-month FAD closure and two-month high seas FAD closure: As for the limits on fishing effort, vessel operators might choose to schedule their routine maintenance periods so as to take best advantage of the available opportunities for making FAD sets, such as during the FAD closures. However, the limited number of vessel maintenance facilities in the region might constrain vessel operators' ability to do this.
It is emphasized that the indicative example given above is based on the assumption that the FAD set ratio would be 50 percent during periods when FAD sets are allowed, as well as that sets are distributed evenly throughout the year. These assumptions are weak from several perspectives, so the results should be interpreted with caution. First, as described above, FAD set ratios have varied widely from year to year, indicating that the conditions that dictate “optimal” FAD set ratios for the fleet vary widely from year to year, and cannot be predicted with any certainty. Second, the optimal FAD set ratio during open periods might depend on how long and when those periods occur. For example, FAD fishing might be particularly attractive soon after a closed period during which FADs aggregated fish but were not fished on. These factors are not explicitly accounted for in this analysis, but the 50 percent FAD ratio used in this analysis was taken from 2014-2016, when there was a three-month FAD closure, so it is probably a better indicator for the action alternatives than FAD set ratios for years prior to 2009, when no seasonal FAD closures were in place. With respect to the distribution of sets through the year, the existence of collective limits on fishing effort might create an incentive for individual vessels to fish harder earlier in the year than they otherwise would, resulting in a “race to fish.” Limitations on fishing effort throughout the Convention Area could cause vessels to fish (irrespective of set type or the timing of FAD closures) harder earlier in a given year than they would without the limits. However, any such effect is not expected to be great, because most vessels in the fleet tend to fish virtually full time, leaving little
Vessels in the U.S. WCPO purse seine fleet make both unassociated sets and FAD sets when not constrained by regulation, so one type of set is not always more valuable or efficient than the other type. Which set type is optimal at any given time is a function of immediate conditions in and on the water, but probably also of such factors as fuel prices (unassociated sets involve more searching time and thus tend to bring higher fuel costs than FAD sets) and market conditions (
This element of the proposed rule would not establish any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements, but the existing “Daily FAD reports” required at 50 CFR 300.218(g) would be slightly revised, and renamed “Daily purse seine fishing effort reports” and would slightly modify the type of information collected.
There would be annual limits of 1,370 and 458 fishing days on the high seas and in the U.S. EEZ, respectively, in the Convention Area. In addition, there would be a mechanism to increase the U.S. EEZ limit in a given year to 558 fishing days if 458 fishing days are used by October 1 of that year.
Fulfillment of this element's requirements is not expected to require any professional skills that the vessel owners and operators do not already possess. The costs of complying with the requirements are described below to the extent possible.
Regarding the modification to the daily reporting requirement, the specific information required in the reports would be slightly modified from those of the existing “Daily FAD reports,” but the costs of compliance are not expected to change.
Regarding the fishing effort limits, if and when the fishery on the high seas or in the U.S. EEZ is closed as a result of a limit being reached in any of the years 2018-2020, owners and operators of U.S. purse seine vessels would have to cease fishing in that area for the remainder of the calendar year. Closure of the fishery in either of those areas could thereby cause foregone fishing opportunities and associated economic losses if the area contains preferred fishing grounds during such a closure. Historical fishing rates in the two areas give a rough indication of the likelihood of the limits being reached.
Regarding the U.S. EEZ, from 2009 through 2017 (NMFS has only preliminary estimates for 2017), no more than 50 percent of the proposed limit of 458 fishing days was ever used (and no more than the 41 percent of the possible limit of 558 fishing days). This history suggests a relatively low likelihood of the proposed EEZ limit being reached in 2018-2020. However, the allowance for an extra 100 fishing days if the 458 fishing days are used by October 1 could provide an incentive for the fleet to use more fishing days in the EEZ than it otherwise would. Furthermore, this would be the first time that separate limits would be established for the EEZ and the high seas, so the incentives for individual vessels in the fleet would change. A minority of the fleet is authorized to fish in the U.S. EEZ (8 of the 33 vessels currently licensed under the South Pacific Tuna Treaty (SPTT)
Regarding the high seas from 2009 through 2017, between 31 and 135 percent of the proposed limit of 1,370 fishing days was used, and at least 100 percent was used in three of the nine years. In two years, 2015 and 2016, the ELAPS was closed for part of the year (starting June 15 in 2015, and September 2 in 2016), so more fishing effort might have occurred in those two years were there no limits. This history suggests a substantial likelihood of the proposed high seas limit being reached in any of the years 2018-2020.
Two factors could have a substantial influence on the amount of fishing effort in the U.S. EEZ and on the high seas in 2018-2020: First, the number of fishing days available in foreign waters (the fleet's main fishing grounds) pursuant to the SPTT will influence the incentive to fish outside those waters, including the U.S. EEZ and high seas. Second, El Niño—Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions will influence where the best fishing grounds are.
Regarding fishing opportunities in foreign waters, in December 2016, the United States and PIPs agreed upon a revised SPTT, and under this new agreement U.S. purse seine fishing businesses can purchase fishing days in the EEZs of the PIPs. There are limits on the number of such “upfront” fishing days that may be purchased. These limits can influence the amount of fishing in other areas, such as the U.S. EEZ and the high seas, as well as the EPO. For example, if the number of available upfront fishing days is relatively small, fishing effort in the U.S. EEZ and/or high seas might be relatively great. In fact, the number of upfront days available for the Kiribati EEZ, which has traditionally constituted important fishing grounds for the U.S. fleet, is notably small—only 300 fishing days per year. However, the new SPTT regime provides for U.S. purse seine fishing businesses to purchase “additional” fishing days through direct bilateral agreements with the PIPs. NMFS cannot project how many additional days will be purchased in any given years, so cannot gauge how the limits on upfront days might influence fishing effort in the U.S. EEZ or on the high seas. Limits on upfront days are therefore not considered here any further.
Additionally, effective January 1, 2015, Kiribati prohibited commercial fishing in the Phoenix Islands Protected Area, which is a large portion of the Kiribati EEZ around the Phoenix Islands. These limitations in the Kiribati
Regarding El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions, the eastern areas of the WCPO tend to be comparatively more attractive to the U.S. purse seine fleet during El Niño events, when warm surface water spreads from the western Pacific to the eastern Pacific and large, valuable yellowfin tuna become more vulnerable to purse seine fishing and trade winds lessen in intensity. Consequently, the U.S. EEZ and high seas, much of which is situated in the eastern range of the fleet's fishing grounds, is likely to be more important fishing grounds to the fleet during El Niño events (as compared to neutral or La Niña events). This is supported by there being a statistically significant correlation between annual average per-vessel fishing effort in the ELAPS and the Oceanic Niño Index, a common measure of ENSO conditions, over the life of the SPTT through 2010.
El Niño conditions were present in 2015 and in the first half of 2016, and might have contributed to the relatively high rates of fishing in the ELAPS in those years. ENSO neutral conditions began in the latter half of 2016, and continued until the fourth quarter of 2017, when there was a shift to La Niña conditions, which persisted through early 2018 (and which is consistent with the moderate rates of fishing in the ELAPS in 2017). As of February 8, 2018, the National Weather Service states that a transition from La Niño to ENSO-neutral conditions is likely (~55 percent chance) in March-May of 2018 (NWS 2018). Thus ENSO conditions might have a negative influence on fishing in the U.S. EEZ and the high seas early in 2018 and a largely neutral influence for the rest of 2018. Their influence on fishing effort in 2019 and 2020 cannot be predicted with any certainty.
Another potentially important factor is that the EEZ and high seas limits would be competitive limits, so their establishment could cause a “race to fish” in the two areas. That is, vessel operators might seek to take advantage of the limited number of fishing days available in the areas before the limits are reached, and fish harder in the ELAPS than they would if there were no limits. On the one hand, any such race-to-fish effect might be reflected in the history of fishing in the ELAPS, described above. On the other hand, anecdotal information from the fishing industry suggests that the limits might have been internally allocated by the fleet, which might have tempered any race to fish. It is not known whether the industry intends to internally allocate the proposed limits.
In summary, although difficult to predict, either the U.S. EEZ or high seas limits could be reached in any of the years 2018-2020, especially the high seas limits. If either limit is reached in a given year, the fleet would be prohibited from fishing in that area for the remainder of the calendar year.
The closure of any fishing grounds for any amount of time can be expected to bring adverse impacts to affected entities (
If either the U.S. EEZ or high seas is closed, possible next-best opportunities for U.S. purse seine vessels fishing in the WCPO include fishing in the other of the two areas, fishing in foreign EEZs inside the Convention Area, fishing outside the Convention Area in EPO, and not fishing.
With respect to fishing in the U.S. EEZ or on the high seas: If the U.S. EEZ were closed, the high seas would be available to the fleet until its limit is reached. If the high seas were closed, the U.S. EEZ would be available until its limit is reached, but only for the vessels with fishery endorsements on their Certificates of Documentation (currently 9, including 8 vessels with SPTT licenses and one additional vessel without).
With respect to fishing in the Convention Area in foreign EEZs: As described above, under the SPTT the fleet might have substantial fishing days available in the Pacific Island country EEZs that dominate the WCPO, but it is not possible to predict how many fishing days will be available to the fleet as a whole or to individual fishing businesses.
With respect to fishing in the EPO: The fleet has generally increased its fishing operations in the EPO since 2014, and as of 2017, there were 17 purse seine vessel in the WCPO fleet that are also listed on the IATTC Vessel Register. In order to fish in the EPO, a vessel must be on the IATTC's Regional Vessel Register and categorized as active (50 CFR 300.22(b)), which involves fees of about $14.95 per cubic meter of well space per year (
With respect to not fishing at all during a closure of the U.S. EEZ or high seas: This would mean a loss of any revenues from fishing. However, many of the vessels' variable operating costs would be avoided in that case, and it is possible that for some vessels a portion of the time might be used for productive activities like vessel and equipment maintenance.
The opportunity costs of engaging in next-best opportunities in the event of a closure are not known, so the potential impacts cannot be quantified. However, to give an indication of the magnitude of possible economic impacts to producers in the fishery (
The last five years for which catch estimates for the U.S. WCPO purse seine fleet are available are 2012-2016. Those estimates, adjusted to an indicative fleet size of 35 vessels, equate to annual average catches of skipjack tuna, yellowfin tuna, and bigeye tuna of 236,077 mt, 24,802 mt, and 4,213 mt, respectively, or 265,091 mt in total. Applying an indicative current Bangkok cannery price for skipjack tuna of $1,500 per mt to all three species, the value of annual fleet-wide catches at 2012-2016 average levels would be about $398 million, equivalent to a little more than $1 million per calendar day, on average. It should be noted that cannery prices are fairly volatile; for example, cannery prices are much lower now than prices during most of 2017.
In addition to the effects described above, the proposed limits could affect the temporal distribution of fishing effort in the U.S. purse seine fishery. Since the limits would apply fleet-wide—that is, they would not be allocated to individual vessels—vessel operators might have an incentive to fish harder in the affected areas earlier in each calendar year than they otherwise would. Such a race-to-fish effect might also be expected in the time period between when a closure of the fishery is announced and when it is actually closed, which would be at least seven calendar days. To the extent such temporal shifts occur, they could affect the seasonal timing of fish catches and deliveries to canneries. The timing of cannery deliveries by the U.S. fleet alone (as it might be affected by a race to fish in the EEZ or high seas) is unlikely to have an appreciable impact on prices, because many canneries in the Asia-Pacific region and elsewhere buy from the fleets of multiple nations. A race to fish could bring costs to affected entities if it causes vessel operators to forego vessel maintenance in favor of fishing or to fish in weather or ocean conditions that they otherwise would not. This could bring costs in terms of the health and safety of the crew as well as the economic performance of the vessel.
This element of the proposed rule would remove a reporting/recordkeeping requirement, the requirement to notify NMFS when entering and exiting the EHSSMA. It would also establish a prohibition on transshipment in the EHSSMA.
Fulfillment of this element's requirements is not expected to require any professional skills that the vessel owners and operators do not already possess. The costs of complying with the requirements are described below to the extent possible.
Regarding the entry/exit notices, when NMFS established the requirement in 2012 (final rule published December 3, 2012; 77 FR 71501), it estimated that each report would require about 15 minutes of labor (at a labor cost of about $60 per hour) and no more than $1 in communication costs, for an estimated total cost of compliance of about $16 per notice. At that time, NMFS estimated that each longline vessel would enter and exit the EHSSMA between zero and approximately four times per year (requiring 0-8 notices per year at an annual cost of $0-128), each purse seine vessel would do so between zero and approximately two times per year (requiring 0-4 notices per year at an annual cost of $0-64), and each albacore troll vessel would do so between zero and two times per year (requiring 0-4 notices per year at an annual cost of $0-64). According to the notices received by NMFS, zero longline vessels and zero albacore troll vessels have entered the EHSSMA from 2013 through 2017, and there have been nine entries/exits by purse seine fishing vessels. In any case, under the proposed rule, commercial fishing vessels would be relieved of about $16 in compliance costs each time they enter or exit the EHSSMA.
As described above, the type of the impacts would vary greatly among fishing gear types (
NMFS has not identified any Federal regulations that duplicate, overlap with, or conflict with the proposed regulations.
NMFS has sought to identify alternatives that would minimize the proposed rule's economic impacts on small entities (“significant alternatives”). Taking no action could result in lesser adverse economic impacts than the proposed action for affected entities (but as described below, for some affected longline entities, the proposed rule could be more economically beneficial than no-action), but NMFS does not prefer the no-action alternative, because it would be inconsistent with the United States' obligations under the Convention. Alternatives identified for each of the four elements of the proposed rule are discussed below.
NMFS has not identified any significant alternatives for this element of the proposed rule, other than the no-action alternative.
NMFS considered in detail one alternative to this element of the proposed rule, but only with respect to the timing of the two-month FAD closure for the high seas. CMM 2017-01 allows members to choose either November-December, as in this proposed rule, or April-May. NMFS has compared the expected direct economic impacts of the two alternatives on purse seine fishing businesses in the regulatory impact review for the proposed rule. The analysis finds that a November-December closure is more likely to have a lesser direct economic impact on those businesses than an April-May closure, primarily because the later closure period is more likely to run concurrently with a closure of the high seas in the Convention Area to purse seine fishing (if the fishing effort limit in this proposed rule is reached), in which case the FAD closure would bring no additional economic impacts.
In the past, NMFS implemented the U.S. purse seine fishing effort limits on the high seas and in the U.S. EEZ adopted by the Commission as a single combined limit in the ELAPS. For this
NMFS has not identified any significant alternatives for this element of the proposed rule, other than the no-action alternative.
This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval. Public reporting burden for the daily report of purse seine effort information is estimated to average 10 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information.
Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS PIRO (see
Administrative practice and procedure, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Marine resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 300 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 6901
(b) * * *
(1) Vessels shall be marked in accordance with the identification requirements of § 300.336(b)(2), and if an IRCS has not been assigned to the vessel, then the Federal, State, or other documentation number used in lieu of the IRCS must be preceded by the characters “USA” and a hyphen (that is, “USA-”).
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(v)
(g)
(v) Use a fishing vessel equipped with purse seine gear to fish in an area closed to purse seine fishing under § 300.223(a).
(w) Set a purse seine around, near or in association with a FAD or a vessel, deploy, activate, or service a FAD, or use lights in contravention of § 300.223(b).
(oo) Transship in the Eastern High Seas Special Management Area in contravention of § 300.225.
(pp) Fail to submit, or ensure submission of, a daily purse seine fishing effort report as required in § 300.218(g).
(a)
(1) For the high seas there is a limit of 1,370 fishing days per calendar year.
(2) For the U.S. EEZ there is a limit of 458 fishing days per calendar year. If NMFS expects that this limit will be reached by October 1 in a given calendar year, NMFS will publish a notice in the
(3) NMFS will determine the number of fishing days spent on the high seas and in the U.S. EEZ in each calendar year using data submitted in logbooks and other available information. After NMFS determines that a limit in a calendar year is expected to be reached by a specific future date, and at least seven calendar days in advance of the closure date, NMFS will publish a notice in the
(4) Once a fishery closure is announced pursuant to paragraph (a)(3) of this section, fishing vessels of the United States equipped with purse seine gear may not be used to fish in the closed area during the period specified in the
(b) * * *
(1) During the periods and in the areas specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, owners, operators, and crew of fishing vessels of the United States equipped with purse seine gear shall not do any of the activities described below in the Convention Area in the area between 20° N latitude and 20° S latitude:
(i) Set a purse seine around a FAD or within one nautical mile of a FAD.
(ii) Set a purse seine in a manner intended to capture fish that have aggregated in association with a FAD or a vessel, such as by setting the purse seine in an area from which a FAD or a vessel has been moved or removed within the previous eight hours, or setting the purse seine in an area in which a FAD has been inspected or handled within the previous eight hours, or setting the purse seine in an area into which fish were drawn by a vessel from the vicinity of a FAD or a vessel.
(iii) Deploy a FAD into the water.
(iv) Repair, clean, maintain, or otherwise service a FAD, including any electronic equipment used in association with a FAD, in the water or on a vessel while at sea, except that:
(A) A FAD may be inspected and handled as needed to identify the FAD, identify and release incidentally captured animals, un-foul fishing gear, or prevent damage to property or risk to human safety; and
(B) A FAD may be removed from the water and if removed may be repaired, cleaned, maintained, or otherwise serviced, provided that it is not returned to the water.
(v) From a purse seine vessel or any associated skiffs, other watercraft or equipment, do any of the following, except in emergencies as needed to prevent human injury or the loss of human life, the loss of the purse seine vessel, skiffs, watercraft or aircraft, or environmental damage:
(A) Submerge lights under water;
(B) Suspend or hang lights over the side of the purse seine vessel, skiff, watercraft or equipment, or;
(C) Direct or use lights in a manner other than as needed to illuminate the deck of the purse seine vessel or associated skiffs, watercraft or equipment, to comply with navigational requirements, and to ensure the health and safety of the crew.
(2) The requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall apply:
(i) From July 1 through September 30, in each calendar year;
(ii) In any area of high seas, from November 1 through December 31, in each calendar year.
(3)
(ii)
(a) * * *
(1) There is a limit of 3,554 metric tons of bigeye tuna per calendar year that may be captured in the Convention Area by longline gear and retained on board by fishing vessels of the United States.
The owner and operator of a fishing vessel of the United States used for commercial fishing for HMS is prohibited from engaging in transshipment in the Eastern High Seas Special Management Area.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Ketchikan Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Ketchikan, Alaska. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following website:
The meeting will be held on May 24, 2018, at 6:00 p.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Ketchikan Supervisor's Office, Second Floor Conference Room, 648 Mission Street, Ketchikan, Alaska. A conference line will be set up for those who would like to listen in by telephone. For the conference call number, please contact the person listed under
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Marla Booth, Acting RAC Coordinator, by phone at (907) 228-4133 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Monitor ongoing SRS Title II funded projects;
2. Make recommendations for changes to ongoing projects, and
3. Conduct new business.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by close of business on May 8, 2018, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Marla J Booth, Acting RAC Coordinator, Ketchikan Misty Fiords Ranger District, 3031 Tongass Avenue, Ketchikan, Alaska 99901; by email to
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Housing Service, Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice.
Section 6025 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill) provides the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to give priority to projects that support strategic economic development or community development plans. The Agency has the authority to reserve funds for those programs (referred to as the “underlying programs”) included in Strategic Economic and Community Development (SECD), for projects that support multijurisdictional strategic economic and community development plans. This Notice supersedes the SECD fiscal year 2016 (FY) notice that published on March 17, 2016 and identifies that for FY 2018 the Agency will utilize priority points under the SECD provisions, as opposed to set-aside funding.
To apply for SECD priority points, applicants must submit Form RD 1980-88, “Strategic Economic and Community Development (section 6025) Priority,” by the underlying program application deadlines or September 30, 2018, whichever comes first.
Submit Form RD 1980-88 to the USDA Rural Development Area Office servicing the area where the project is located. A list of the USDA Rural Development Area Offices can be found listed by state at:
For more information, please contact your respective Rural Development State Office listed here:
For all other inquiries, contact Regional Community Economic Development Coordinators as follows:
• Midwest Region—Christine Sorensen: 202-568-9832,
• Northeast Region—Angela Callie: 610-791-9810 ext. 123,
• Southern Region—Greg Dale: (870) 633-3055 Ext. 123,
• Western Region-Tim O'Connell: (503) 414-3396,
• National Office—Jamie Davenport, Rural Development Innovation Center, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 3254, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-0783, Telephone: 202-720-0002. Email:
This action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 13258.
On March 17, 2016, the Agency published in the
The Agency has determined that several factors indicate the use of priority points for SECD projects is more desirable than set-aside funds this fiscal year. The factors are: (1) Priority points may be awarded through September 30, as opposed to June 30 for set-aside funds; (2) the level of demand for reserved funding in prior years; and (3) projects resulting from regional partnerships will be more strongly encouraged.
Applicants seeking FY 2018 funds for projects that support multijurisdictional plans will be eligible for SECD priority points. Applicants must (1) meet the eligibility requirements of the underlying program based on its annual notice, policies and/or regulations, including application deadlines; (2) meet the underlying program's return on investment requirements outlined in the notice of funding availability, as applicable; (3) meet the eligibility requirements of 7 CFR part 1980, subpart K; and (4) submit Form RD 1980-88 and supporting documentation.
To be considered for SECD priority points, applicants must submit a complete Form RD 1980-88. Applicants are encouraged to submit Form RD 1980-88 and supporting documentation concurrent with the application for the underlying program for which the applicant is applying, in an effort to avoid improper or duplicative awards to recipients as required by law.
Form RD 1980-80 requests such information as (see 7 CFR 1980.1015):
• Identification of whether the applicant includes a State, county, municipal, or tribal government;
• Identification by name of the plan being supported by the project, the date the plan became effective and is to remain in effect, and a detailed description of how the project directly supports one or more of the plan's objectives;
• Sufficient information to show that the project will be carried out solely in a rural area; and
• Identification of any current or previous applications the applicant has submitted for funds from the underlying programs.
If an applicant has already submitted a FY 2018 application for one of the underlying programs and the applicant wishes to be considered for SECD priority points, the applicant must submit Form RD 1980-88 by close of business on the date listed in the
If an applicant has not submitted a FY 2018 application for one of the underlying programs and that program is still accepting applications for FY 2018 funding, the applicant must submit Form RD 1980-88 at the same time the applicant submits the application material for the underlying program.
Failure to submit a complete Form RD 1980-88 may result in not receiving SECD priority points.
The Agency will score applications seeking SECD priority points in accordance with the procedures specified in 7 CFR 1980.1020. In accordance with 7 CFR 1980.1025, those applications, whose score will include any SECD priority points awarded for the entire fiscal year, will compete for program funding with all other program applications that do not seek SECD priority points using the award process for the applicable underlying program.
Applicants whose applications with SECD priority points are selected for funding are required to submit information in accordance with 7 CFR 1980.1026.
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 How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email:
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of this sunset review, Commerce finds that revocation of this antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.
Applicable May 10, 2018.
Ross Belliveau, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4952.
On February 15, 2013, Commerce published its antidumping duty order on large residential washers from Mexico in the
Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through January 22, 2018. As a result, the revised deadline for the final results of this review is now May 7, 2018.
Commerce received a substantive response from Whirlpool
On February 23, 2018, Commerce notified the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that it did not receive an adequate substantive response from respondent interested parties.
The products covered by the
Products subject to this
All issues raised in this sunset review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum are the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping, and the magnitude of the margins of dumping likely to prevail if this order were revoked. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via the Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This five-year (sunset) review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Notice of public meeting via webinar.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a webinar of its Observer Policy Committee on Friday, May 25, 2018 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 webinar will be held on Friday, May 25, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. Webinar registration URL information:
The meeting will be held via webinar.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Committee will review the draft National Marine Fisheries Service Procedural Directive on cost allocation in electronic monitoring programs for federally managed U.S. Fisheries, and consider a response. Other business will be discussed if necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council 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. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
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; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Groundfish Committee 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 Friday, June 1, 2018 at 9 a.m.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The committee will discuss the Amendment 23/Groundfish Monitoring draft alternatives and Plan Development Team (PDT) work related to the development of the action and make recommendations to the Council on the draft alternatives. The committee will also review Framework Adjustment 58 PDT work to date and make recommendations to the Council on items to include in the action (to be initiated at the June Council meeting). They will also review the Groundfish Advisory Panel recommendations and make recommendations to the Council. Other business will be discussed as 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. 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 date. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permits and permit amendments.
Notice is hereby given that permits or permit amendments have been issued to the following entities under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as applicable.
The permits and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Jennifer Skidmore (Permit No. 21419 and Permit No. 21251), Courtney Smith
Notices were published in the
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
For Permit Nos. 14450-05, 14856-06, 16239-03, 17312-01, and 18636-01, an environmental assessment (EA) was prepared analyzing the effects of the permitted activities on the human environment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
As required by the ESA, as applicable, issuance of these permit was based on a finding that such permits: (1) Were applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in Section 2 of the ESA.
The requested permits have been issued under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
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 Herring Committee 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, May 31, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Herring Committee will review draft white paper on consideration of federal management for river herring and shad stocks and provide recommendations for the Council to consider at their June 2018 meeting. They will also have an initial discussion of measures to include in 2019-2021
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 a public webinar meeting.
The Caribbean Fishery Management Council's (Council) Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will hold a one-day webinar meeting to address the Council's Terms of Reference contained in the agenda in the
The meeting will be held on May 29, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Eastern Standard Time.
You may join the SSC Webinar meeting from a computer, tablet or smartphone by entering the following address:
The meeting may be extended from, or completed prior to the time established in this notice.
Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1903; telephone: (787) 766-5926.
The agenda will consist of the discussion of the following Terms of Reference:
1. Confirm the landings year sequence to be used to calculate the sustainable yield level (SYL) for Puerto Rico recreational jacks;
2. Clarify the process for calculating SYL and acceptable biological catch (ABC) for stock complexes with two indicator species (Tier 4a);
3. Finalize indicator species selection for Grouper Unit 5 and Snapper Unit 3 in St. Croix and for Grouper Unit 4 in St. Thomas/St. John;
4. Reconsider tier assignment for Grouper Unit 4 (St. Thomas/St. John) and Grouper Unit 5 (St. Croix) presently assigned to Tier 4b;
5. Reconsider ad hoc ABC for St. Croix queen conch;
6. Determine whether to use the alternative year sequences for St. Croix and St. Thomas/St. John proposed by the Southeast Fisheries Science Center (Tiers 4a and 4b);
7. For each stock/complex included in Tier 4b, a) establish scalar for determining SYL, and b) finalize scientific uncertainty buffer for SYL to ABC;
8. Clarify whether to include an additional buffer reduction to account for scientific uncertainty resulting from the reallocation of unspecified landings (Tiers 4a and 4b);
9. Address the Council's directive to remove additional reductions proposed by the SSC to be applied to the SYL for ecologically important species; and
10. Address the summary report from the February/March 2018 SSC meeting
This webinar meeting will be chaired by Dr. Richard Appeldoorn and moderated by Atty. Jocelyn D'Ambrosio.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolón, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918-1903, telephone: (787) 766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will hold a public hearing via webinar for Reef Fish Amendment 49—Modifications to the Sea Turtle Release Gear and Framework Procedure for the Reef Fish Fishery.
The webinar will take place on Thursday, May 31, 2018. The webinar will begin at 6 p.m. and conclude no later than 9 p.m. EDT.
The meeting will take place via webinar; see below for webinar link. Council address: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: (813) 348-1630.
Dr. Carrie M. Simmons, Deputy Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council;
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council is holding a webinar public hearing to review Reef Fish Amendment 49: Modifications to the Sea Turtle Release Gear and Framework Procedure for the Reef Fish
The second action would modify the framework procedure to allow new gears to be approved for use without a full amendment to the fishery management plan in the future. Staff will then open the meeting for questions and public comments.
You may register for the Public Hearing: Reef Fish Amendment 49 meeting on Thursday, May 31, 2018 at:
The meeting will be broadcast via webinar. You may listen in by registering for the webinar by visiting
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on
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 Groundfish Advisory Panel 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, May 31, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Advisory Panel will discuss the Amendment 23/Groundfish Monitoring draft alternatives and Plan Development Team (PDT) work related to the development of the action, and make recommendations to the Groundfish Committee on the draft alternatives. The panel will also review Framework Adjustment 58 PDT work to date and make recommendations to the Groundfish Committee on items to include in the action (to be initiated at the June Council meeting). Other business will be discussed as 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. 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. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Thursday, May 17, 2018, 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD.
Commission Meeting—Open to the Public.
Decisional Matter: Fiscal Year 2018 Mid-Year Review.
A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at
Rockelle Hammond, Office of the Secretariat, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, DOD.
30-day information collection notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 11, 2018.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493, or
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at
Department of Education (ED), Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 11, 2018.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Suzanne Ulmer, 202-453-7691.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the
The May 9, 2018 Planning Management Committee Meeting will be held at: Energy Strategies, 215 State St. #200, Salt Lake City, UT 84111.
The June 13, 2018 Planning Management Committee Meeting will be held at: Xcel Energy, 1800 Larimer St., Denver, CO 80202.
The above-referenced meetings will be available via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meetings are open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at
The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceeding: ER13-75,
For more information contact Nicole Cramer, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-6775 or
On April 27, 2018, Davis and Weber Counties Canal Company filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed West Point Pump Station Micro-hydropower Project would have an installed capacity of 8 kilowatts (kW), and would be located along Davis and Weber Counties Canal Company's secondary irrigation system. The project would be located near the Town of West Point in Davis County, Utah.
A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.
Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
On April 27, 2018, Davis and Weber Counties Canal Company filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed Canal Station 603+00 Micro-hydropower Project would have an installed capacity up to 8 kilowatts (kW), and would be located along the four-foot wide by six-foot long section of the open irrigation canal. The project would be located near the Town of Sunset in Davis County, Utah.
A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.
Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of data availability.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice of the availability of data on emission allowance allocations to certain units under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) trading programs. EPA has completed preliminary calculations for the first round of allocations of allowances from the CSAPR new unit set-asides (NUSAs) for the 2018 control periods and has posted spreadsheets containing the calculations on EPA's website. EPA will consider timely objections to the preliminary calculations (including objections concerning the identification of units eligible for allocations) before determining the final amounts of the first-round allocations.
Objections to the information referenced in this notice must be received on or before June 11, 2018.
Submit your objections via email to
Questions concerning this action should be addressed to Kenon Smith at (202) 343-9164 or
Under each CSAPR trading program where EPA is responsible for determining emission allowance allocations, a portion of each state's emissions budget for the program for each control period is reserved in a NUSA (and in an additional Indian country NUSA in the case of states with Indian country within their borders) for allocation to certain units that would not otherwise receive allowance allocations. The procedures for identifying the eligible units for each control period and for allocating allowances from the NUSAs and Indian country NUSAs to these units are set forth in the CSAPR trading program regulations at 40 CFR 97.411(b) and 97.412 (NO
This notice concerns preliminary calculations for the first round of NUSA allowance allocations for the 2018 control periods. Generally, the allocation procedures call for each eligible unit to receive a first-round 2018 NUSA allocation equal to its 2017 emissions as reported under 40 CFR part 75 unless the total of such allocations to all eligible units would exceed the amount of allowances in the NUSA, in which case the allocations are reduced on a pro-rata basis.
The detailed unit-by-unit data and preliminary allowance allocation calculations are set forth in Excel spreadsheets titled “CSAPR_NUSA_2018_NO
Each state worksheet also contains a summary showing (1) the quantity of allowances initially available in that state's 2018 NUSA, (2) the sum of the first-round 2018 NUSA allowance allocations that will be made to new units in that state, assuming there are no corrections to the data, and (3) the quantity of allowances that would remain in the 2018 NUSA for use in second-round allocations to new units (or ultimately for allocation to existing units), again assuming there are no corrections to the data.
Objections should be strictly limited to the data and calculations upon which the NUSA allowance allocations are based and should be emailed to the address identified in
EPA notes that an allocation or lack of allocation of allowances to a given unit does not constitute a determination that CSAPR does or does not apply to the unit. EPA also notes that under 40 CFR 97.411(c), 97.511(c), 97.611(c), 97.711(c), and 97.811(c), allocations are subject to potential correction if a unit to which allowances have been allocated for a given control period is not actually an affected unit as of the start of that control period.
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 July 9, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The data collected on FCC Form 601 includes the FCC Registration Number (FRN), which serves as a “common link” for all filings an entity has with the FCC. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires entities filing with the Commission to use an FRN.
The FCC Form 601 is being revised by Sections 90.35, 90.20 and 90.175 to require third party disclosures by wireless license applicants proposing to operate a vehicular repeater units on designated frequencies. They are required to obtain written concurrence of a frequency coordinator. This information submitted as an attachment to FCC form 601 will be used by Commission personnel in evaluating the applicant's need for such frequencies and to minimize the interference potential to other stations operating on the proposed frequencies.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than May 25, 2018.
1.
Additionally, Janice A. Doss, Holt, Missouri, individually, and as trustee of the Janice A. Doss Revocable Trust dated February 8, 2018, to retain shares of Trustco Bankshares, Inc.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project “Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture Database.”
Comments on this notice must be received by July 9, 2018.
Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection. In 1999, the Institute of Medicine called for health care organizations to develop a “culture of safety” such that their workforce and processes focus on improving the reliability and safety of care for patients (IOM, 1999;
The survey is designed to enable medical offices to assess provider and staff perspectives about patient safety issues, medical error, and error reporting. The survey includes 38 items that measure 10 composites of patient safety culture. In addition to the composite items, 14 items measure staff perceptions of how often medical offices have problems exchanging information with other settings as well as other patient safety and quality issues. AHRQ made the survey publicly available along with a Survey User's Guide and other toolkit materials in December, 2008 on the AHRQ website (located at
The AHRQ Medical Office SOPS Database consists of data from the AHRQ Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture and may include reportable, non-required supplemental items. Medical offices in the U.S. can voluntarily submit data from the survey to AHRQ, through its contractor, Westat. The Medical Office SOPS Database (OMB NO. 0935-0196, last approved on August 25, 2015) was developed by AHRQ in 2011 in response to requests from medical offices interested in tracking their own survey results. Those organizations submitting data receive a feedback report, as well as a report of the aggregated, de-identified findings of the other medical offices submitting data. These reports are used to assist medical office staff in their efforts to improve patient safety culture in their organizations.
This database will:
(1) Present results from medical offices that voluntarily submit their data,
(2) Provide data to medical offices to facilitate internal assessment and learning in the patient safety improvement process, and
(3) Provide supplemental information to help medical offices identify their strengths and areas with potential for improvement in patient safety culture.
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, Westat, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to: The quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of health care services; quality measurement and improvement; and database development. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1), (2), and (8).
To achieve the goal of this project the following activities and data collections will be implemented:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Survey data from the AHRQ Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture are used to produce three types of products:
(1) A Medical Office SOPS Database Report that is made publicly available on the AHRQ website (see Medical Office User Database Report);
(2) Individual Medical Office Survey Feedback Reports that are customized for each medical office that submits data to the database; and
(3) Research data sets of individual-level and medical office-level de-identified data to enable researchers to conduct analyses. All data released in a data set are de-identified at the individual-level and the medical office-level.
Medical offices will be invited to voluntarily submit their Medical Office SOPS survey data to the database. AHRQ's contractor, Westat, then cleans and aggregates the data to produce a PDF-formatted Database Report displaying averages, standard deviations, and percentile scores on the survey's 38 items and 10 patient safety culture composites of patient safety culture, and 14 items measuring how often medical offices have problems exchanging information with other settings and other patient safety and quality issues. The report also displays these results by medical office characteristics (size of office, specialty, geographic region, etc.) and respondent characteristics (staff position).
The Database Report includes a section on data limitations, emphasizing that the report does not reflect a representative sampling of the U.S. medical office population. Because participating medical offices will choose to voluntarily submit their data into the database and therefore are not a random or national sample of medical offices, estimates based on this self-selected group might be biased estimates. We recommend that users review the database results with these caveats in mind.
Each medical office that submits its data receives a customized survey feedback report that presents their results alongside the aggregated results from other participating medical offices.
Medical offices use the Medical Office SOPS, Database Reports, and Individual Medical Office Survey Feedback Reports for a number of purposes, to:
• Raise staff awareness about patient safety;
• Elucidate and assess the current status of patient safety culture in their medical office;
• Identify strengths and areas for patient safety culture improvement;
• Evaluate trends in patient safety culture change over time; and
• Evaluate the cultural impact of patient safety initiatives and interventions.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondents' time to participate in the database. An estimated 70 POCs, each representing an average of 35 individual medical offices each, will complete the database submission steps and forms. Each POC will submit the following:
• Eligibility and registration form (completion is estimated to take about 3 minutes).
• Data Use Agreement (completion is estimated to take about 3 minutes).
• Medical Office Information Form (completion is estimated to take about 5 minutes).
• Survey data submission will take an average of one hour.
The total burden is estimated to be 283 hours.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden based on the respondents' time to submit their data. The cost burden is estimated to be $14,880 annually.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ's health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled
CDC must receive written comments on or before July 9, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2018-0026 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Health Message Testing System (HMTS) 0920-0572—Reinstatement—Office of the Associate Director for Communication (OADC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Before CDC disseminates a health message to the public, the message always undergoes scientific review. Even though the message is based on sound scientific content, there is no guarantee that the public will understand a health message or that the message will move people to take a recommended action. Communication theorists and researchers agree that for health messages to be as clear and influential as possible, target audience members or representatives must be involved in developing the messages, and provisional versions of the messages must be tested with members of the target audience.
Increasingly, there are circumstances when CDC must move swiftly to protect life, prevent disease, or calm public anxiety. Health message testing is even more important in these instances, because of the critical nature of the information need.
In the interest of timely health message dissemination, many programs forgo the important step of testing messages on dimensions such as clarity, salience, appeal, and persuasiveness (
The Health Message Testing System (HMTS), a generic information collection, enables programs across CDC to collect the information they require in a timely manner to:
• Ensure quality and prevent waste in the dissemination of health information by CDC to the public.
• Refine message concepts and to test draft materials for clarity, salience, appeal, and persuasiveness to target audiences.
• Guide the action of health communication officials who are responding to health emergencies, Congressionally-mandated campaigns with short timeframes, media-generated public concern, time-limited communication opportunities, trends, and the need to refresh materials or dissemination strategies in an ongoing campaign.
• Ensure each testing instrument will be based on specific health issues or topics.
Although it is not possible to develop one instrument for use in all instances, the same kinds of questions are asked in most message testing. This package includes generic questions and formats that can used to develop health message testing data collection instruments. These include a list of screening questions, comprised of demographic and introductory questions, along with other questions that can be used to create a mix of relevant questions for each proposed message testing data collection method. However, programs may request to use additional questions if needed.
Message testing questions will focus on issues such as comprehension, impressions, personal relevance, content and wording, efficacy of response, channels, and spokesperson/sponsor. Such information will enable message developers to enhance the effectiveness of messages for intended audiences.
Data collection methods proposed for HMTS includes intercept interviews, telephone interviews, focus groups, online surveys, and cognitive interviews. In almost all instances, data will be collected by outside organizations under contract with CDC.
For many years CDC programs have used HMTS to test and refine message concepts and test draft materials for clarity, salience, appeal, and persuasiveness to target audiences. Having this generic clearance available has enabled them to test their information and get critical health information out to the public quickly. Over the last three years, more than 30 messages have been tested using this clearance. Examples of use of the HMTS mechanism include:
(1) Domestic Readiness Initiative on Zika Virus Disease-Year 2 Core Campaign Materials. As part of the mission of CDC's Domestic Readiness Initiative on the Zika Virus Disease, CDC collected information to inform an outcome evaluation to determine the extent to which the campaign affected awareness, attitudes, and intention to follow recommended behaviors at different points during the campaign. The goal of the evaluation was to better understand awareness of campaign activities, how people perceive Zika as a health risk, and assess their uptake of recommended health behaviors, such as applying insect repellent, using condoms, and wearing long-sleeved clothing.
(2) Assessing Perception and Use of CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain. The purpose of this collection is to assess primary care physician's perceptions and use of communication materials and products associated with the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain. Information collected can assist in the most effective use of CDC communication resources and opportunities by assessing clarity, salience, appeal, persuasiveness and effectiveness of materials promoting the dissemination and implementation of the Guideline. Specifically, CDC seeks to understand how primary care physicians perceive, need, and implement the Guideline to make prescribing decisions; how they need, obtain, and use supplementary and promotional Guideline materials developed by CDC for professional development or patient education; and what attitudinal and structural barriers may inhibit primary care provider adoption of the recommendations in the Guideline.
Over 10,000 respondents were queried and over 4,500 burden hours used during the most recent approval period. Because the availability of this ICR has been so critical to programs in disseminating their materials and
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled Medical Monitoring Project (MMP) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on [insert August 22, 2017] to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received 1 comment related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Medical Monitoring Project (MMP)—(OMB No. 0920-0740 Exp: 6/30/2018)—Revision—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention (DHAP) requests a revision of the currently approved Information Collection Request: “Medical Monitoring Project” expiring June 30, 2018. This data collection addresses the need for national estimates of access to and utilization of HIV-related medical care and services, the quality of HIV-related ambulatory care, and HIV-related behaviors and clinical outcomes.
For the proposed project, the same data collection methods will be used as for the currently approved project. Data would be collected from a probability sample of HIV-diagnosed adults in the U.S. who consent to an interview and abstraction of their medical records. As for the currently approved project, de-identified information would also be extracted from HIV case surveillance records for a dataset, referred to as the minimum dataset, which is used to assess non-response bias, for quality control, to improve the ability of MMP to monitor ongoing care and treatment of HIV-infected persons, and to make inferences from the MMP sample to HIV-diagnosed persons nationally. No other Federal agency collects such nationally representative population-based information from HIV-diagnosed adults. The data are expected to have significant implications for policy, program development, and resource allocation at the state/local and national levels.
The changes proposed in this request update the data collection system to meet prevailing information needs and enhance the value of MMP data, while remaining within the scope of the currently approved project purpose. The result is a 11% reduction in burden, or a reduction of 786 total burden hours annually. Specifically, the removal of three unfunded project areas reduces the number of interviews conducted and the number of persons for whom healthcare facility staff will be asked for contact information, assistance with approaching for participation, and pulling medical records.
Changes were made that did not affect the burden, listed below:
• Sampled persons found to have resided in a non-funded project area on the date of sampling will be considered ineligible for the project, because non-funded project areas were deemed ineligible in the first stage of sampling.
• Tracking data reports will no longer be sent to CDC, as this information is no longer needed.
• The average token of appreciation for participants has been increased from $25 to $50.
• Non-substantive changes have been made to recruitment materials to decrease the reading comprehension level, simplify and standardize procedures, and incorporate a user-friendly eligibility checklist.
• Changes have been made to the respondent consent form to decrease the reading comprehension level and clarify whom participants should contact for different concerns.
• Forty-three data elements were removed from the minimum data set and thirty-seven data elements were added. Because these data elements are extracted from the HIV surveillance system from which they are sampled, these changes do not affect the burden of the project.
• Revisions to the interview questionnaire were made to improve coherence, boost the efficiency of the data collection, and increase the relevance and value of the information. Based on an evaluation of the currently approved MMP interview instrument 118 questions were added to the interview form and 221 questions were removed. However, the average amount of time to complete the interview did not change.
• Thirty-nine data elements were removed from the MRA data structure because they were not found to be useful. No new elements were added. Because the medical records are abstracted by MMP staff, these changes do not affect the burden of the project.
This proposed data collection would supplement the National HIV Surveillance System (NHSS, OMB Control No. 0920-0573, Exp. 6/30/2019) in 23 selected state and local health departments, which collect information on persons diagnosed with, living with, and dying from HIV infection and AIDS.
Through their participation, respondents will help to improve programs to prevent HIV infection as well as services for those who already have HIV. The total burden hours are 6,354 hours. The participation of respondents is voluntary. There is no cost to the respondents other than their time.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled “Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Program Reporting” that collects information on ART cycles to publish information on pregnancy success rates as required under Section 2(a) of the Federal Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act (FCSRCA).
CDC must receive written comments on or before July 9, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2018-0037 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Program Reporting System—Extension—(OMB# 0920-0556, exp. 7/31/2018). National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Section 2(a) of Public Law 102-493 (known as the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992 (FCSRCA), 42 U.S.C. 263a-1(a)) requires that each assisted reproductive technology (ART) program shall annually report to the Secretary through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: (1) Pregnancy success rates achieved by such ART program, and (2) the identity of each embryo laboratory used by such ART program and whether the laboratory is certified or has applied for such certification under the Act. The required information is currently reported by ART programs to CDC as specified in the Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Program Reporting System (OMB no. 0920-0556, exp. 7/31/2018). CDC seeks to extend OMB approval for a period of three years. The revised total burden estimate is lower than under the previous approval, due to removal of the burden associated with a one-time system upgrade that was completed under the prior approval. However, some of this burden reduction will be offset by an increase in the number of ART clinics and cycles reported, due to an increase in the utilization of ART in the United States.
The currently approved program reporting system, also known as the National ART Surveillance System (NASS), includes information about all ART cycles initiated by any of the ART programs in the United States. An ART cycle is considered to begin when a woman begins taking ovarian stimulatory drugs or starts ovarian monitoring with the intent of having embryos transferred; for each cycle. CDC collects information about the pregnancy outcome, as well as a number of data items deemed by experts in the field to be important to explain variability in success rates across ART programs and individuals.
Each ART program reports its annual ART cycle data to CDC in mid-December. The annual data reporting consists of information about all ART cycles that were initiated in the previous calendar year. For example, the December 2017 reports described ART cycles that were initiated between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016. Data elements and definitions currently in use reflect CDC's prior consultations with representatives of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART), the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and RESOLVE: the National Infertility Association (a national, nonprofit consumer organization), as well as a variety of individuals with expertise and interest in this field.
The estimated number of respondents (ART programs or clinics) is 464, based on the number of clinics that provided information in 2015; the estimated average number of responses (ART cycles) per respondent is 350. Additionally, approximately 5-10% of responding clinics will be randomly selected each year to participate in data validation and quality control activities; an estimated 35 clinics will be selected to report validation data on 70 cycles each on average. Finally, respondents may provide feedback to CDC about the usability and utility of the reporting system. The option to participate in the feedback survey is presented to respondents when they complete their required data submission. Participation in the feedback survey is voluntary and is not required by the FCSRCA. CDC estimates that 75% of ART programs will participate in the feedback survey.
The collection of ART cycle information allows CDC to publish an annual report to Congress as specified by the FCSRCA and to provide information needed by consumers. OMB approval is requested for three years and there are no costs to respondents other than their time.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for information and comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is establishing a public docket to assist with its development of a policy/guidance document on the assessment of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) for therapeutic proteins (TPs). The Agency split the 2012 DDI draft guidance into two draft guidance documents published in October 2017: “In Vitro Metabolism- and Transporter-Mediated Drug-Drug Interaction Studies” and “Clinical Drug Interaction Studies—Study Design, Data Analysis, and Clinical Implications.” The two guidance documents focus on enzyme- and transporter-based DDIs and do not include a discussion on TPs, which was originally included in the 2012 guidance. The Agency is currently revisiting the framework for assessment of DDIs for TPs outlined in the draft 2012 DDI guidance to offer timely and actionable information pertaining to DDIs for TPs and is seeking public input to assist in updating or creating a new framework.
Although you can comment at any time, to ensure that the Agency considers your comment in our development of recommendations, submit either electronic or written information and comments by July 9, 2018.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• 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
Concurrent use of more than one prescription drug is common. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey reports that about 20 percent of U.S. adults take three or more prescription drugs; and among adults age 65 and older, 40 percent take five or more medications.
Two draft guidance documents, when finalized, which are intended to assist drug developers in the planning and evaluation of the DDI potential of their drug during development were published in October 2017 entitled “Clinical Drug Interaction Studies—Study Design, Data Analysis, and Clinical Implications,” and “In Vitro Metabolism- and Transporter-Mediated Drug-Drug Interaction Studies.”
“In Vitro Metabolism- and Transporter-Mediated Drug-Drug Interaction Studies” can be found at
The 2012 guidance recommended DDI assessment for TPs in three scenarios: (1) For cytokine or cytokine modulators, (2) for a known or suspected mechanism of DDI not related to effects on Cytochrome P450 enzymes or transporters, and (3) for when a TP is used in combination with another drug. The Agency now plans to revisit the previous framework for the assessment of DDIs for TPs that was included in the 2012 draft guidance. We are seeking public input on the revision and development of a framework to address DDIs for TPs with the goal of publishing this framework in a short policy/guidance document.
Interested persons are invited to provide detailed information and comments on the approach to the DDI assessment of TPs. Please read the information above regarding the submission of comments and confidential information. FDA is particularly interested in responses to the following overarching questions:
1. In what scenarios/circumstances and for which classes of TPs should DDI assessment be performed? Please provide rationale for your suggestions including available data and scientific principles to inform the considerations.
2. For circumstances when DDI assessments are necessary:
a. What types of assessments can be useful (
b. What are the study design considerations (
FDA will consider all information and comments submitted.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a guidance entitled “S3A Guidance: Note for Guidance on Toxicokinetics: The Assessment of Systemic Exposure in Toxicity Studies: Focus on Microsampling—Questions and Answers.” The guidance was prepared under the auspices of the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH), formerly the International Conference on Harmonisation. This question-and-answer (Q&A) guidance provides additional information to facilitate interpretation of the guideline for industry “S3A Toxicokinetics: The Assessment of Systemic Exposure in Toxicity Studies” (S3A guidance), especially to address the benefit and use of microsampling techniques in main study animals. The Q&A guidance is intended to provide points to consider before incorporating the microsampling method in toxicokinetic studies and acknowledges the benefits (and some limitations) of the use of microsampling.
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
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 (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010. See the
In recent years, regulatory authorities and industry associations from around the world have participated in many important initiatives to promote international harmonization of regulatory requirements under the ICH. FDA has participated in several ICH meetings designed to enhance harmonization, and FDA is committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and reduce differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies.
ICH was established to provide an opportunity for harmonization initiatives to be developed with input from both regulatory and industry representatives. FDA also seeks input from consumer representatives and others. ICH is concerned with harmonization of technical requirements for the registration of pharmaceutical products for human use among regulators around the world. The six founding members of the ICH are the European Commission; the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations; FDA; the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare; the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association; and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The Standing Members of the ICH Association include Health Canada and Swissmedic. Any party eligible as a member in accordance with the ICH Articles of Association can apply for membership in writing to the ICH Secretariat. The ICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, operates as an international nonprofit organization and is funded by the Members of the ICH Association.
The ICH Assembly is the overarching body of the Association and includes representatives from each of the ICH members and observers. The Assembly is responsible for the endorsement of draft guidelines and adoption of final guidelines. FDA publishes ICH guidelines as FDA guidance.
In the
After consideration of the comments received and revisions to the guideline, a final draft of the guideline was submitted to the ICH Assembly and endorsed by the regulatory agencies in November 2017.
The Q&A guidance provides additional information to facilitate interpretation of the S3A guidance. The S3A guidance has been successfully implemented since 1994, and in recent years, analytical method sensitivity has improved, allowing microsampling techniques to be used in toxicokinetic assessment. This Q&A guidance focuses on points to consider before incorporating the microsampling method in toxicokinetic studies, acknowledges the benefits (and some limitations) of the use of microsampling for assessing toxicokinetics in main study animals, and acknowledges the overall important contribution of microsampling to the 3Rs benefits (replacement, reduction, and refinement), by reducing or eliminating the need for toxicokinetic satellite animals.
The Q&A guidance is intended to apply to the majority of pharmaceuticals and biopharmaceuticals; however, for all types of molecules, consideration should be given on a case-by-case basis as to whether the sensitivity of the measurement method is appropriate for the small sample volumes available. The guidance on microsampling provided in the Q&A can be used in any type of toxicology study, as well as in rodents and nonrodents.
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 “S3A Guidance: Note for Guidance on Toxicokinetics: The Assessment of Systemic Exposure in Toxicity Studies: Focus on Microsampling—Questions and Answers.” 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 document at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections: Developing Drugs for Treatment.” The purpose of this draft guidance is to assist sponsors in the development of new drugs for the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infections.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by August 8, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance 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
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft 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. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Joseph Toerner, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6244, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1400.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections: Developing Drugs for
This draft guidance defines enrollment criteria for uncomplicated urinary tract infection trials and provides options for clinical trials designed to demonstrate efficacy. An appendix to this draft guidance describes the justification for the noninferiority margin to be used for the option of active-controlled trials designed to demonstrate noninferiority. In addition, this draft guidance reflects recent developments in scientific information that pertain to drugs being developed for the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infections.
Issuance of this draft guidance fulfills a portion of the requirements of Title VIII, section 804, of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), which requires FDA to review and, as appropriate, revise not fewer than three guidance documents per year for the conduct of clinical trials with respect to antibacterial and antifungal drugs. In 1998, FDA published a draft guidance entitled “Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections—Developing Antimicrobial Drugs for Treatment” (the 1998 draft guidance). In a
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on developing drugs for the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infections. 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.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 312 and 314 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 and 0910-0001, respectively.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
National Vaccine Program Office, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is hereby giving notice that a meeting is scheduled to be held of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC). The meeting will be open to the public via teleconference; a public comment session will be held during the meeting.
The meeting will be held on June 25, 2018, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. EST. The confirmed meeting times and agenda will be posted on the NVAC website at
Instructions regarding attending this meeting will be posted one week prior to the meeting at:
Captain Angela Shen, National Vaccine Program Office, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Room 715H, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201. Phone: (202) 690-5566; email:
Pursuant to Section 2101 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-1), the Secretary of HHS was mandated to establish the National Vaccine Program to achieve optimal prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization and to achieve optimal prevention against adverse reactions to vaccines. The NVAC was established to provide advice and make recommendations to the Director of the National Vaccine Program on matters related to the Program's responsibilities. The Assistant Secretary for Health serves as Director of the National Vaccine Program.
The public meeting will include a presentation from the HPV Implementation Working Group on its findings and draft recommendations for strengthening the effectiveness of national, state, and local efforts to improve HPV coverage rates. The presentation will be followed by Committee deliberation and a vote. The public meeting will also include a presentation on the recent HHS report, “Encouraging Vaccine Innovation: Promoting the Development of Vaccines that Minimize the Burden of Infectious Diseases in the 21st Century,” which was submitted to Congress in accordance with provisions in the 21st Century Cures Act. All agenda items are tentative and subject to change. Information on the final meeting agenda will be posted prior to the meeting on the NVAC website:
Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments at the NVAC meeting during the public comment periods designated on the agenda. Public comments made during the meeting will be limited to three minutes per person to ensure time is allotted for all those wishing to speak. Individuals are also welcome to submit their written comments. Written comments should not exceed three pages in length. Individuals submitting written comments should email their comments to the National Vaccine Program Office (
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Intertek USA, Inc., has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of June 13, 2017.
The accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on June 13, 2017. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for June 2020.
Mr. Stephen Cassata, Laboratories and Scientific Services, 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., 149 Pintail St., St. Rose, LA 70087, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and 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 set forth by 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 AmSpec LLC (Ferndale, WA) as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that AmSpec LLC (Ferndale, WA) 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 August 24, 2017.
AmSpec LLC (Ferndale, WA) was approved and accredited as a commercial gauger and laboratory as of August 24, 2017. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for August 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 AmSpec LLC, 1350 Slater Rd., Unit 9, Ferndale, WA 98248, 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. AmSpec LLC is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
AmSpec LLC 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 SGS North America, Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that SGS North America, Inc., has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of May 19, 2016.
The accreditation and approval of SGS North America, Inc., as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on May 19, 2016. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for May 2019.
Mr. Stephen Cassata, Laboratories and Scientific Services, 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 SGS North America, Inc., 15602 Jacintoport Blvd., Houston, TX 77015, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. SGS North America, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the American Petroleum Institute (API):
SGS North America, 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
National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.
Committee management; notice of an open federal advisory committee meeting.
The President's National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) will meet Thursday, June 14, 2018, in Washington, DC. This meeting will be open to the public.
The NIAC will meet on Thursday, June 14, 2018, 1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). The meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business. For additional information, please consult the NIAC website,
1331 F Street NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004. Members of the public will register at the registration table prior to entering the meeting room. For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the person listed under
Members of the public are invited to provide comments on issues to be considered by the NIAC mentioned in the
•
•
•
•
Members of the public will have an opportunity to provide oral comments on the topics on the meeting agenda below, and on any previous studies issued by the NIAC. We request that comments be limited to the issues and studies listed in the meeting agenda and previous NIAC studies. All previous NIAC studies can be located at
Ginger Norris, NIAC Designated Federal Officer, Department of Homeland Security, 202-441-5885,
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix. The NIAC shall provide the President, through the Secretary of Homeland Security, with advice on the security and resilience of the Nation's critical infrastructure sectors. The NIAC will meet to discuss issues relevant to critical infrastructure security and resilience, as directed by the President. The Council will discuss future taskings and host a cross-sector panel discussion about various risks facing critical infrastructure. All powerpoint presentations will be posted prior to the meeting on the Council's public web page;
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
60-Day notice.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public comment on one currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0039, abstracted below that we will submit to OMB for a revision in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The collection involves the submission of information from claimants in order to thoroughly examine and resolve tort claims against the agency.
Send your comments by July 9, 2018.
Comments may be emailed to
Christina A. Walsh at the above address, or by telephone (571) 227-2062.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and E.O. 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, TSA is also requesting comments on the extent to which this request for information could be modified to reduce the burden on respondents.
OMB Control Number 1652-0039; TSA Claims Application, previously named the TSA Claims Management Branch Program, allows the agency to collect information from claimants in order to thoroughly examine and resolve tort claims against the agency. TSA is revising the collection by changing the name from “TSA Claims Management Branch Program” to “TSA Claims Application.” TSA receives approximately 850 tort claims per month arising from airport screening activities and other circumstances, including motor vehicle accidents and employee loss. The Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 1402(b), 2401(b), 2671-2680) is the authority under which the TSA Claims, Outreach and Debt Branch adjudicates tort claims.
The data is collected whenever an individual believes s/he has experienced property loss or damage, a personal injury, or other damages due to the negligence or wrongful act or omission of a TSA employee, and decides to file a Federal tort claim against TSA. Submission of a claim is entirely voluntary and initiated by individuals. The claimants (or respondents) to this collection are typically the traveling public. Currently, claimants file a claim by submitting to TSA a Standard Form 95 (SF-95), which has been approved under OMB control number 1105-0008. Because TSA requires further clarifying information, claimants are asked to complete a Supplemental Information page added to the SF-95. If TSA determines payment is warranted, TSA will send the claimant a form requesting banking information (routing and accounting numbers) in order to direct payment to the claimant. This form has been approved under OMB control number 1652-0039.
Claim instructions and forms are available through the TSA website at
If TSA determines payment is warranted, TSA sends the claimant a form requesting: (1) Claimant signature, (2) banking information, and (3) Social Security number (required by the U.S. Treasury for all Government payments to the public pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3325).
Under the current system of claims submitted by mail or fax, TSA estimates there will be approximately 10,200 respondents on an annual basis, for a total annual hour burden of 5,300 hours.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Notice of Housing Counseling Federal Advisory Committee (HCFAC) Public Meeting.
This gives notice of a Housing Counseling Federal Advisory Committee (HCFAC) meeting and sets forth the proposed agenda. The Committee meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 22, 2018. The meeting is open to the public and is accessible to individuals with disabilities. This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting date due to unforeseen administrative delays.
The meeting via teleconference will be held on May 22, 2018, starting at 11 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (ET) via conference phone.
Virginia F. Holman, Housing Specialist, Office of Housing Counseling, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 600 East Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23219; telephone number (804) 822-4911 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons who have difficulty hearing or speaking may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 (toll-free number). Individuals may also email
HUD is convening the meeting of the HCFAC on Tuesday May 22, 2018 from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. ET. The meeting will be held and via conference phone. This meeting notice is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 10(a)(2).
The teleconference meeting is open to the public, with limited phone lines available, on a first-come, first-served basis. Advance registration is required to participate. To register to attend, please visit the following link:
Attendees can call-in to the meeting by using the following number in the United States: (888) 297-9852 (toll-free number). Participants are required to enter a conference code, which will be sent to all registered attendees via email.
An operator will ask callers to provide their names and their organizational affiliations (if applicable) prior to placing callers into the conference line to ensure they are part of the pre-registration list. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines and HUD will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free phone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service (FRS): (800) 977-8339 (toll-free number) and providing the FRS operator with the conference call number: (888) 297-9852.
With advance registration, members of the public will have an opportunity to provide oral and written comments relative to agenda topics for the Committee's consideration. To provide oral comments, please be sure to indicate this on the registration link. The total amount of time for oral comments will be 15 minutes with each commenter limited to two minutes to ensure pertinent Committee business is completed. Written comments must be provided no later than May 15, 2018 at 5 p.m. ET to
Records and documents discussed during the meeting, as well as other information about the work of this Committee, will be available for public viewing as they become available at:
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs made a final agency determination to acquire 48.58 acres, more or less, of land near the City of Eufaula, McIntosh County, Oklahoma, (Fountainhead Site) in trust for the Muscogee (Creek) Nation for gaming and other purposes on April 30, 2018.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Bureau of Indian Affairs, MS-3657 MIB, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240, telephone (202) 219-4066.
This notice is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by 209 Departmental Manual 8.1, and is published to comply with the requirements of 25 CFR 151.12(c)(2)(ii) that notice of the decision to acquire land in trust be promptly provided in the
On April 30, 2018, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs issued a decision to accept the Fountainhead Site, consisting of approximately 48.58 acres, more or less, of land in trust of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation (Nation), under the authority of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. 5108. The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs determined that Nation's request also meets the requirements of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act's “Oklahoma Exception,” 25 U.S.C. 2719(a)(2)(A)(i), to the general prohibition contained in 25 U.S.C. 2719(a) on gaming on lands acquired in trust after October 17, 1988.
The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, will immediately acquire title to the Fountainhead Site in the name of the United States of America in trust for the Nation upon fulfillment of Departmental requirements.
The property known as Fountainhead Resort property submitted for gaming-related purposes is comprised of 48.58 acres, located in Section 34, Township 11 North, Range 16 East, McIntosh County, Oklahoma, described as follows:
Beginning 165.00 feet west of the southeast corner of the Southwest Quarter (SW/4) of said Section Thirty-Four (34); THENCE north 00°18′24″ East a distance of 330.00 feet; THENCE north 26°47′33″ east a distance of 369.96 feet; THENCE north 00°18′24″ east a distance of 134.27 feet; THENCE north 46°48′06″ west a distance of 18.21 feet; THENCE north 59°50′42″ west a distance of 150.63 feet; THENCE north 67°23′20″ west a distance of 182.12 feet; THENCE north 57°54′16″ west a distance of 507.87 feet; THENCE north 12°52′25″ west a distance of 140.35 feet; THENCE north 33°20′21″ east a distance of 160.30 feet; THENCE north 16°20′06″ east a distance of 507.62 feet; THENCE south 89°56′04″ west a distance of 444.33 feet; THENCE south 00°16′36″ west a distance of 165.09 feet; THENCE south 22°01′53″ west a distance of 891.23 feet; THENCE south 89°55′24″ west a distance of 330.52 feet; THENCE south 26°49′23″ west a distance of 370.00 feet; THENCE south 00°15′06″ west 330.26 feet; THENCE south 26°23′58″ east a distance of 368.42 feet to the South Line of said Section 34; THENCE north 89°54′44″ east 1487.60 feet to the point of beginning.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The plat of survey of the following described lands is scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho, in 30 days from the date of this publication.
A copy of the plat may be obtained from the Public Room at the Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office, 1387 S Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho 83709, upon required payment.
Timothy A. Quincy, (208) 373-3981 Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 1387 South Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho 83709-1657. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at (800) 877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with Mr. Quincy. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
A person or party who wishes to protest one or more plats of survey identified above must file a written notice with the Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Idaho, Bureau of Land Management. The protest must identify the plat(s) of survey that the person or party wishes to protest and contain all reasons and evidence in support of the protest. The protest must be filed before the scheduled date of official filing for the plat(s) of survey being protested. Any protest filed after the scheduled date of official filing will be untimely and will not be considered. A protest is considered filed on the date it is received by the Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Idaho during regular business hours; if received after regular business hours, a protest will be considered filed the next business day. If a protest against a plat of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing, the official filing of the plat of survey identified in the protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat of survey will not be officially filed until the next business day following dismissal or resolution of all protests of the plat.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in a protest, you should be aware that the documents you submit, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available in their entirety at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Park Service, Interior.
Meeting notice.
The National Park Service is hereby giving notice of a meeting of the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Advisory Council.
The public meeting will be held on Monday, June 4, 2018, at 6:00 p.m. (Pacific).
The meeting will take place at the Federal Interagency Office Building, 4701 N. Torrey Pines Road, Las Vegas, Nevada 89130-2301.
Further information concerning the meeting may be obtained from Diane Keith, Superintendent, Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument, 601 Nevada Way, Boulder City, Nevada 89005, via telephone at (702) 515-5462, or email at
The Council was established pursuant to Section 3092(a)(6) of Public Law 113-291 and in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Management Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 1-16). The purpose of the Council is to advise the Secretary of the Interior, or his designee, with respect to the preparation and implementation of the management plan.
The tentative agenda for the meeting is as follows:
The meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may make oral/written presentations to the Council during the business meeting or file written statements. Such requests should be made to the Superintendent prior to the meeting. 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.
Section 3092(a)(6) of Public Law 113-291; 5 U.S.C. Appendix 1-16.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Call for information and nominations, reopening of comment period.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) issued a Call for Information and Nominations (Call) in the
All nominations and comments submitted in response to this Call and extension must be received by BOEM no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on May 30, 2018. BOEM will consider submissions sent by mail as long as they are postmarked by the last day of the comment period.
1.
2.
Ms. Patricia LaFramboise, Chief, Leasing Section, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Alaska OCS Region, 3801 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 99503, telephone (907) 334-5200.
The purpose of the Call published on March 30, 2018, (83 FR 13778) was to solicit industry nominations for areas of leasing interest and to gather comments and information on the area included in the Call for consideration in planning for this proposed OCS oil and gas lease sale. Because this lease sale is proposed to occur in 2019, and given the long lead time needed to prepare for a proposed sale, the planning process must begin now or the option of a lease sale in 2019 would be precluded. However, the Call is not a decision to lease and is not a prejudgment by the Secretary concerning any area that may be made available for leasing under the 2019-2024 National OCS Program. Please refer to the original
This Call is published pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), as amended (43 U.S.C. 1331-1356), and the implementing regulation at 30 CFR 556.301.
BOEM will protect privileged or proprietary information that industry submits in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and OCSLA requirements. To avoid inadvertent release of such information, all documents and every page containing such information should be marked with the statement, “Confidential—Contains Proprietary Information.” To the extent a document contains a mix of proprietary and nonproprietary information, the document should be clearly marked to indicate which portion of the document is proprietary and which is not. Exemption 4 of FOIA applies to trade secrets and commercial or financial information that you submit that is privileged or confidential. The OCSLA states that the “Secretary shall maintain the confidentiality of all privileged or proprietary data or information for such period of time as is provided for in this subchapter, established by regulation, or agreed to by the parties” (43 U.S.C. 1344(g)). BOEM considers nominations of specific blocks to be proprietary, and therefore BOEM will not release information that identifies any particular nomination with any particular party, so as not to compromise the competitive position of any participants in the process of indicating interest.
However, please be aware that BOEM's practice is to make all comments, including the names and addresses of individuals, available for public inspection. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, please be advised that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. In order for BOEM to withhold from disclosure your personal identifying information, you must identify any information contained in the submission 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. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. BOEM will make available for public inspection, in their entirety, all comments submitted by organizations and businesses, or by individuals identifying themselves as representatives of organizations or businesses.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3314) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
On March 6, 2018, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On January 24, 2018, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the “MSRB” or “Board”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Commission received four comment letters on the proposed rule change.
As described more fully in the Notice of Filing, the MSRB stated that the purpose of proposed amended Rule G-21 is to, among other things: enhance the MSRB's fair-dealing provisions by promoting regulatory consistency among Rule G-21 and the advertising rules of other financial regulators; and promote regulatory consistency between Rule G-21(a)(ii), the definition of “form letter,” and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) Rule 2210's definition of “correspondence.”
The MSRB stated that concurrent with its efforts to enhance Rule G-21 and promote regulatory consistency among Rule G-21 and the advertising rules of other financial regulators through proposed amended Rule G-21, it prepared proposed Rule G-40 to address advertising by municipal advisors.
The proposed rule change also would make technical and non-substantive amendments to Rule G-42. Specifically, Rule G-42(f)(iv) defines municipal advisory activities as “those activities that would cause a person to be a municipal advisor as defined in subsection (f)(iv) of this rule.”
The MSRB requested that the proposed rule change be effective nine months from the date of Commission approval.
The MSRB stated that to enhance Rule G-21's fair dealing requirements, as well as to promote regulatory consistency among Rule G-21 and the advertising rules of other financial regulators, proposed amended Rule G-21 would provide more specific content standards than current Rule G-21.
In the Notice of Filing, the MSRB stated that proposed amended Rule G-21(a)(iii) would add content standards to make explicit many of the MSRB's fair dealing obligations that follow from the MSRB's requirements set forth in Rule G-21 and Rule G-17, on conduct of municipal securities and municipal advisory activities, and the interpretive guidance the MSRB has provided under those rules, and to specifically address them to advertising.
• An advertisement be based on principles of fair dealing and good faith, be fair and balanced and provide a sound basis for evaluating the facts about any particular municipal security or type of municipal security, industry, or service, and that a dealer not omit any material fact or qualification if such omission, in light of the context presented, would cause the advertisement to be misleading;
• an advertisement not contain any false, exaggerated, unwarranted, promissory or misleading statement or claim;
• a dealer limit the types of information placed in a legend or footnote of an advertisement so as to not inhibit a customer's or potential customer's understanding of the advertisement;
• an advertisement provide statements that are clear and not misleading within the context that they are made, that the advertisement provide a balanced treatment of the benefits and risks, and that the advertisement is consistent with the risks inherent to the investment;
• a dealer consider the audience to which the advertisement will be directed and that the advertisement provide details and explanations appropriate to that audience;
• an advertisement not predict or project performance, imply that past performance will recur or make any exaggerated or unwarranted claim, opinion or forecast; and
• an advertisement not include a testimonial unless it satisfies certain conditions.
The MSRB stated that, by so doing, proposed amended Rule G-21(a)(iii) would promote regulatory consistency with FINRA Rule 2210(d)(1)'s and FINRA Rule 2210(d)(6)'s content standards for advertisements.
Proposed amended Rule G-21 also would expand upon the guidance provided by Rule A-12, on registration. Rule A-12(e) permits a dealer to state that it is MSRB registered in its advertising, including on its website.
The MSRB stated that proposed amended Rule G-21(a)(iv), (b)(ii), and (c)(ii) would promote regulatory consistency among Rule G-21's general standard for advertisements, standard for professional advertisements, and standard for product advertisements (collectively, the “general standards”) and the content standards of FINRA Rule 2210(d). Currently, the MSRB stated, Rule G-21's general standards prohibit a dealer, in part, from publishing or disseminating material that is “materially false or misleading.”
Currently, the MSRB stated, Rule G-21(a)(ii) defines a “form letter,” in part, as a written letter distributed to 25
Supplementary Material .03 to proposed amended Rule G-21 would explain the term “person” when used in the context of a form letter under Rule G-21(a)(ii).
In the Notice of Filing, the MSRB stated that proposed amended Rule G-21 would contain a technical amendment to Rule G-21(e).
The MSRB stated that proposed Rule G-40, similar to Rule G-21, would set forth general provisions, address professional advertisements and require principal approval in writing for advertisements by municipal advisors before their first use.
According to the MSRB, the term “advertisement” in proposed Rule G-40(a)(i) would parallel the term “advertisement” in proposed amended Rule G-21(a)(i), but would be tailored for municipal advisors.
In addition, the MSRB stated that, similar to proposed amended Rule G-21(a)(i), proposed Rule G-40(a)(i) would exclude certain types of documents from the definition of advertisement.
The term “form letter” in proposed Rule G-40 would be identical to the definition of that term set forth in proposed amended Rule G-21(a)(ii).
Proposed Rule G-40, similar to proposed amended Rule G-21, would include Supplementary Material .01 to clarify the number of “persons” for a response to an RFP, RFQ or similar request, when used in the context of a form letter under proposed Rule G-40(a)(ii), is determined at the entity level.
Proposed Rule G-40(a)(iii), unlike Rule G-21, includes the definition of the term “municipal advisory client.”
The MSRB stated that proposed Rule G-40(a)(iv) sets forth content standards for advertisements.
As further described by the MSRB in the Notice of Filing, proposed Rule G-40 would require that:
• An advertisement be based on the principles of fair dealing and good faith, be fair and balanced and provide a sound basis for evaluating the municipal security or type of municipal security, municipal financial product, industry, or service and that a municipal advisor not omit any material fact or qualification if such omission, in light of the context presented, would cause the advertisement to be misleading;
• an advertisement not contain any false, exaggerated, unwarranted, promissory or misleading statement or claim;
• a municipal advisor limit the types of information placed in a legend or footnote of an advertisement so as to not inhibit a municipal advisory client's or potential municipal advisory client's understanding of the advertisement;
• an advertisement provide statements that are clear and not misleading within the context that they are made, that the advertisement provides a balanced treatment of risks and potential benefits, and that the advertisement is consistent with the risks inherent to the municipal financial product or the issuance of the municipal security;
• a municipal advisor consider the audience to which the advertisement will be directed and that the advertisement provide details and explanations appropriate to that audience;
• an advertisement not predict or project performance, imply that past performance will recur or make any exaggerated or unwarranted claim, opinion or forecast; and
• an advertisement not refer, directly or indirectly, to any testimonial of any kind concerning the municipal advisor or concerning the advice, analysis, report or other service of the municipal advisor.
The MSRB also stated in the Notice of filing that, by so doing, proposed Rule G-40's content generally would promote regulatory consistency with proposed amended Rule G-21.
However, unlike proposed amended Rule G-21, proposed Rule G-40 would prohibit a municipal advisor from using a testimonial in an advertisement.
The MSRB stated that it believes that a testimonial in an advertisement by a municipal advisor would present significant issues, including the ability to be misleading.
The MSRB stated that, apart from the content standards discussed above, proposed Rule G-40(a)(iv)(H), similar to proposed amended Rule G-21(a)(iii)(H), also would expand upon the guidance provided by Rule A-12, on registration.
In the Notice of Filing, the MSRB stated that proposed Rule G-40(a)(v) would set forth a general standard with which a municipal advisor must comply for advertisements.
Proposed Rule G-40(b) would define the term “professional advertisement,” and would provide the standard for such advertisements. As defined in proposed Rule G-40(b)(i), a professional advertisement would be an advertisement “concerning the facilities, services or skills with respect to the municipal advisory activities of the municipal advisor or of another municipal advisor.” Proposed Rule G-40(b)(ii) would provide, in part, that a municipal advisor shall not publish or disseminate any professional advertisement that contains any untrue statement of material fact or is otherwise false or misleading.
In the Notice of Filing, the MSRB stated that the strict liability standard for professional advertisements in proposed Rule G-40(b)(ii) is consistent with the MSRB's long-standing belief that a regulated entity should be strictly liable for an advertisement about its facilities, skills, or services, and that a knowledge standard is not appropriate.
Proposed Rule G-40(c) would require that each advertisement that is subject to proposed Rule G-40 be approved in writing by a municipal advisor principal—as defined under MSRB Rule G-3(e)(i)—before its first use. Proposed Rule G-40(c) also would require that the municipal advisor keep a record of all such advertisements. The MSRB stated that proposed Rule G-40(c) is similar in all material respects to proposed amended Rule G-21(f).
Proposed Rule G-40 would omit the provisions set forth in Rule G-21 regarding product advertisements, new issue product advertisements, and municipal fund security product advertisements. The MSRB stated that it understands, at this juncture, that municipal advisors most likely do not prepare such advertisements, as municipal advisors generally advertise their municipal advisory services and not products.
As noted previously, the Commission received four comment letters in response to the Notice of Filing. The MSRB responded to the comment letters on the Notice of Filing in its Response Letter.
In response to the Notice of Filing, two commenters primarily addressed proposed Rule G-21.
Commenters supported proposed amended Rule G-21's promotion of regulatory consistency with FINRA Rule 2210, but believed that the amendments should be further harmonized with FINRA Rule 2210 by adopting that rule's (i) definition of “communications” and the distinctions in FINRA Rule 2210 that follow from that definition
BDA and SIFMA suggested that the MSRB go beyond the MSRB's stated purpose of the proposed amendments,
In response, the MSRB stated that it believes that BDA's and SIFMA's comments fail to recognize the statutory principles set forth in the Act that underlie the differences between FINRA's communications rule and the MSRB's advertising rule.
The MSRB also stated that because the Act limits the MSRB's jurisdiction to the municipal securities market, the MSRB's rulemaking authority also is limited, in part, to dealers effecting transactions in municipal securities and advice provided to or on behalf of municipal entities by such dealers, and by municipal advisors with respect to municipal financial products, the issuance of municipal securities, and solicitations of municipal entities or obligated persons undertaken by dealers and municipal advisors.
The MSRB stated that, in furtherance of the intent of Congress that the MSRB develop a prophylactic framework of regulation for the municipal securities industry, the MSRB developed its fair practice rules, including its advertising rules, to codify basic standards of fair and ethical business conduct for municipal securities professionals.
In response to BDA's comment that having different definitions and different sets of responsibilities imposed by proposed amended Rule G-21 and FINRA Rule 2210 would result in “new and unnecessarily increased regulatory burden along with considerable confusion for broker-dealers. . . .”, the MSRB stated that the requirements in proposed amended Rule G-21, however, are not newly proposed and that they have been, and continue to be, core principles on which the MSRB's advertising regulation is based.
BDA urged the MSRB to permit testimonials in dealer advertising to better harmonize Rule G-21 with FINRA Rule 2210.
SIFMA commented that, while it supported the MSRB's efforts to level the playing field between dealers and municipal advisors, the better way to level that playing field, as well as to promote harmonization with FINRA's rules, is for the MSRB to incorporate FINRA Rule 2210 by reference into the MSRB's rules.
The MSRB responded to SIFMA's comments by stating that the differences between FINRA's and the MSRB's statutory mandates account for certain of the differences between FINRA's communications rules and the MSRB's advertising rule, and that commenters' suggestions fail to recognize the importance of those differences.
The MSRB further noted that, as it had previously discussed in the Notice of Filing, Rule G-21 is one of the MSRB's core fair practice rules that has been in effect since 1978.
Further, the MSRB noted that if the MSRB were to incorporate FINRA Rule 2210 by reference, and if FINRA or its staff were to provide an interpretation of FINRA Rule 2210, the MSRB could appear to be adopting that interpretation without considering the interpretation's ramifications for the special characteristics of the municipal securities market. The MSRB stated that, consistent with its statutory mandate, FINRA adopts rules for the broader corporate securities markets that include the corporate equity and debt markets.
In addition, the MSRB stated that there are municipal securities dealers that are not members of FINRA; those municipal securities dealers should not necessarily be expected to keep abreast of FINRA rule interpretations.
BDA commented that the definitions of standards for product advertisements and professional advertisements were “made redundant by the inclusion of the proposed general and content standards of proposed G-21 and G-40[,]” and that “these provisions should be deleted to signify that these types of communications are covered by the general and content standards of the proposed rule.”
In response, the MSRB stated that although the provisions in proposed amended Rule G-21 and proposed Rule G-40 are analogous to the current provisions in Rule G-21, there are differences in those provisions.
Commenters suggested additional exclusions from the definition of an advertisement related to private placement memoranda
BDA and SIFMA commented that, as part of its harmonization effort, the MSRB should exclude private placement memoranda and limited offering memoranda from the definition of advertisement in proposed amended Rule G-21.
The MSRB stated that it understands BDA's comment as follows: because private placement memoranda and limited offering memoranda are used as a preliminary offering statement would be used, a private placement memorandum and a limited offering memorandum should be excluded from the definition of an “advertisement” on the same basis that a preliminary offering statement is excluded from that definition.
The MSRB stated that it continues to believe that it can best fulfill its mission to protect investors, municipal entities, obligated persons, and the public interest by retaining the narrow exclusions from the definition of an advertisement that are currently set forth in Rule G-21 and that would be set forth in proposed Rule G-40.
BDA also commented that, “[a]s part of its harmonization effort, the MSRB should exclude [from the scope of Rule G-21] materials that are comparable to offering materials that accompany preliminary official statements, such as investor roadshow presentations and other similar materials information [sic].”
In response, the MSRB stated that an investor road show may be a written offer that contains a presentation about an offering by one or more members of the issuer's management and includes discussion of one or more of the issuer, such management and the securities being offered.
BDA and SIFMA commented that the MSRB should amend Rule G-21 (BDA, SIFMA, and NAMA also made similar comments with respect to proposed Rule G-40) to exclude a response to an RFP or RFQ from the definition of an advertisement.
The MSRB stated that it agrees, and provided supplementary material in the proposed rule change to provide clarification to proposed amended Rule
SIFMA requested guidance under proposed Rule G-40 about whether an email that only includes required regulatory disclosures that is sent to more than 25 municipal advisory clients through blind copies would constitute an advertisement.
The Response Letter noted that FINRA had recently requested comment on draft amendments to FINRA Rule 2210 to create an exception to the rule's prohibition on projecting performance to permit a firm to distribute a customized hypothetical investment planning illustration that includes the projected performance of an investment strategy.
SIFMA commented that the MSRB should provide guidance and/or exemptions from proposed amended Rule G-21 for dealer/municipal advisors.
In response, the MSRB stated that it believes, consistent with its statutory mandate, that a dealer or a municipal advisor only becomes subject to MSRB rules based on its activities, and that the MSRB's advertising rules are based, in part, on the activities in which the dealers or municipal advisors engage.
Nevertheless, the MSRB stated that jurisdictional guidance relating to dealer/municipal advisors under Rule G-21 may be beneficial in the future, and the MSRB expects to begin to address such issues in its next fiscal year.
SIFMA commented that the advertising rules should be structured based on activity and not by registration.
In response, the MSRB stated that it does consider the nature and scope of dealer and municipal advisor activities when it develops rules, and that the proposed rule change, in fact, is based on respective activities of dealers and municipal advisors.
Two comment letters primarily focused on proposed Rule G-40.
NAMA commented that proposed Rule G-40 is not necessary because the protections offered by Rule G-17 provide sufficient investor protection from misleading statements.
In response, the MSRB stated that adopting the course of action suggested by NAMA not only would be inconsistent with the MSRB's statutory mandate, but also would create an un-level playing field in the municipal securities market.
The MSRB stated that one of the ways that fraud may enter the market for municipal advisory services is through advertising.
Moreover, the MSRB believes that relying on Rule G-17 to regulate municipal advisor advertising would create an un-level playing field, and would be contrary to the recommendations of other market participants.
NAMA commented that the general information exclusions from the definition of “advice” under Rule 15Ba1-1(d)(1)(ii) under the Act that
In response to NAMA's comment, the MSRB stated that the purpose of proposed Rule G-40, in part, is to ensure that municipal advisor advertising does not contain any untrue statement of material fact and is not otherwise false or misleading. The MSRB also stated that regardless of whether certain information rises to the level of advice, that information may be advertising used to market to potential municipal advisory clients.
In the NAMA Letter, NAMA requested that the MSRB revise proposed Rule G-40 to provide more definitive content standards.
In response, the MSRB stated that it believes that such separate standards could needlessly increase the complexity of proposed Rule G-40 without any offsetting benefit of enhancing the ability of a municipal advisor to comply with proposed Rule G-40. Moreover, the MSRB stated, NAMA's suggestions about the content standards for professional advertisements would lessen the strict liability provisions set forth in proposed Rule G-40(b)(ii) that would apply to professional advertisements.
NAMA also suggested that the MSRB completely delete the MSRB's general standard for advertisements set forth in proposed Rule G-40(a)(v).
NAMA commented that the content standards of the proposed rule change were not clear, and suggested that proposed Rule G-40(a)(iv)(A) be deleted because it is repetitive of Rule G-17.
NAMA, PFM, and SIFMA commented on proposed Rule G-40(iv)(G)'s prohibition on the use of testimonials in municipal advisor advertisements.
In response, the MSRB stated that it considered commenters' suggestions, and continues to believe that a testimonial presents significant issues, including the ability of the testimonial to be misleading.
For the reasons set forth in the Notice of Filing and the Request for Comment, the MSRB determined not to revise proposed Rule G-40 to delete the testimonial ban or to adopt all SEC staff guidance related to the testimonial ban under Rule 206(4)-1.
BDA commented that principal pre-approval was not needed or could be limited to certain types of advertisements.
In response, the MSRB stated that an important element of the MSRB's statutory mandate is to protect municipal entities and obligated persons.
In the NAMA Letter, NAMA requested more specific guidance about the content posted on a municipal advisor's website and about the use of social media by a municipal advisor.
In response, the MSRB stated that the definition of advertisement under proposed Rule G-40 is broad, and similar to Rule G-21, would apply to any “material . . . published or used in any electronic or other public media . . . .”
In response to NAMA's request for additional interpretive guidance regarding the use social media by municipal advisors, the MSRB stated that it believes that such guidance would be timely after any SEC approval of an advertising rule for municipal advisors.
Several comments were received comments on the Economic Analysis that the MSRB performed on the proposed rule change from both NAMA and SIFMA.
As the MSRB noted in the Notice of Filing and the Response Letter, the MSRB stated that it is planning to conduct a retrospective analysis on the cumulative impact of the municipal advisor regulatory framework on the municipal advisory industry once the entire framework is implemented.
In response to the comments received regarding the proposed rule change, the MSRB stated that it believes that the proposed rule change will enhance the MSRB's fair practice rules for dealers by promoting regulatory consistency among Rule G-21 and the advertising rules of other financial regulators.
• Guidance under proposed Rule G-40(a)(iv)(G) relating to case studies and client lists;
• Guidance under proposed Rule G-40(c) relating to content standards;
• Guidance under proposed Rule G-40 relating to a municipal advisor's use of social media.
The Commission has carefully considered the proposed rule change, the comment letters received and the Response Letter. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the MSRB.
In particular, the proposed amended Rule G-21 and proposed Rule G-40, are consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act.
The Commission believes that proposed amended Rule G-21 is consistent with the provisions of Section 15B(b)(2)(C)
In addition, the Commission believes that proposed amended Rule G-21 also will help protect investors and the public interest by helping ensure that advertisements present a fair statement of the services, products, or municipal securities advertised.
The Commission believes that proposed Rule G-40 is consistent with the provisions of Section 15B(b)(2)(C)
In addition, the Commission believes that proposed Rule G-40 will help protect investors, municipal entities, obligated persons and the public interest by providing prescriptive requirements that will help ensure that advertisements present a fair statement of the municipal advisory services advertised.
The Commission also finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iv), in that it does not impose a regulatory burden on small municipal advisors that is not necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors, municipal entities, and obligated persons.
In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission also has considered the impact of the proposed rule change, on efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
The Commission believes, through promoting regulatory consistency of certain MSRB advertising standards with those of other financial regulators, proposed amended Rule G-21 may improve efficiency in the form of less unnecessary complexity for dealers and reduced burdens and compliance costs over time, because such additional regulatory consistency should assist dealers with developing uniform policies and procedures. The Commission believes this may also benefit both retail and institutional investors, where transparency, consistency, truthful and accurate information and ease of comparison of different financial services would be highly valued. While dealers may experience increased costs because of the new requirements, these costs should not be significant for dealers also registered with FINRA as much of proposed amended Rule G-21 would align with FINRA Rule 2210. The Commission believes proposed amended Rule G-21 would not impose an unreasonable burden on dealers, and the likely benefits, such as the prevention of fraudulent and manipulative advertising by dealers and the protection of investors, justify such costs.
The Commission believes that one benefit of proposed Rule G-40 may be that municipal advisors provide clients more accurate information through advertising, which may lead municipal entities and obligated persons to more informed decision-making when selecting municipal advisors. Furthermore, the Commission believes that as a result of municipal advisor compliance with proposed Rule G-40's advertising standards, municipal entities and obligated persons may be able to more easily establish objective criteria to use in selecting municipal advisors that may increase the likelihood that municipal advisors are hired because of their qualifications as opposed to other reasons. In addition, the Commission believes that transparency, consistency, truthful and accurate information in advertising should benefit municipal entities and obligated persons in general. Although municipal advisors are likely to incur costs associated with compliance with the proposed Rule G-40, the cost would be justified by the likely benefits of the proposed rule, such as the prevention of fraudulent and manipulative advertising by municipal advisors and the protection of municipal entities and obligated persons.
The Commission has reviewed the record for the proposed rule change and notes that the record does not contain any information to indicate that the proposed rule change would have a negative effect on capital formation.
As noted above, the Commission received four comment letters on the Notice of Filing. The Commission believes that the MSRB, through its responses and its commitment to provide additional interpretive guidance prior to the effective date of the proposed rule change, has addressed commenters' concerns.
For the reasons noted above, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to extend the operation of its Flexible Exchange Options (“FLEX Options”) pilot program regarding permissible exercise settlement values for FLEX Index Options.
(a)-(c) (No change).
. . .
.01 FLEX Index Option PM Settlements Pilot Program: Notwithstanding subparagraph (a)(2)(iv) above, for a pilot period ending the earlier of [May 3]
.02 (No change).
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On January 28, 2010, the Exchange received approval of a rule change that, among other things, established a pilot program regarding permissible exercise settlement values for FLEX Index Options.
Under Rule 24A.4,
Under the exercise settlement values pilot, this restriction on p.m. and specified average price settlements in FLEX Index Options was eliminated.
Cboe Options is proposing to extend the pilot program through the earlier of November 5, 2018 or the date on which the pilot program is approved on a permanent basis. Cboe Options believes the pilot program has been successful and well received by its Trading Permit Holders and the investing public for the period that it has been in operation as a pilot. In support of the proposed extension of the pilot program, and as required by the pilot program's Approval Order, the Exchange has submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) pilot program reports regarding the pilot, which detail the Exchange's experience with the program. Specifically, the Exchange provided the Commission with annual reports analyzing volume and open interest for each broad-based FLEX Index Options class overlying an Expiration Friday, p.m.-settled FLEX Index Options series.
The Exchange believes there is sufficient investor interest and demand in the pilot program to warrant its extension. The Exchange believes that, for the period that the pilot has been in operation, the program has provided investors with additional means of managing their risk exposures and carrying out their investment objectives. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that it has not experienced any adverse market effects with respect to the pilot program, including any adverse market volatility effects that might occur as a result of large FLEX exercises in FLEX Option series that expire near Non-FLEX expirations and use a p.m. settlement (as discussed below).
In that regard, based on the Exchange's experience in trading FLEX Options to date and over the pilot period, Cboe Options continues to believe that the restrictions on exercise settlement values are no longer necessary to insulate Non-FLEX expirations from the potential adverse market impacts of FLEX expirations.
The Exchange also notes that certain position limit, aggregation and exercise limit requirements continue to apply to FLEX Index Options in accordance with Rules 24A.7,
Cboe Options is also cognizant of the OTC market, in which similar restrictions on exercise settlement values do not apply. Cboe Options
If, in the future, the Exchange proposes an additional extension of the pilot program, or should the Exchange propose to make the pilot program permanent, the Exchange will submit, along with any filing proposing such amendments to the pilot program, an annual report (addressing the same areas referenced above and consistent with the pilot program's Approval Order) to the Commission at least two months prior to the expiration date of the program. The Exchange will also continue, on a periodic basis, to submit interim reports of volume and open interest consistent with the terms of the exercise settlement values pilot program as described in the pilot program's Approval Order. Additionally, the Exchange will provide the Commission with any additional data or analyses the Commission requests because it deems such data or analyses necessary to determine whether the pilot program is consistent with the Exchange Act. The Exchange will make public all data and analyses previously submitted to the Commission under the pilot program, as well as any data and analyses it makes to the Commission under the pilot program in the future.
As noted in the pilot program's Approval Order, any positions established under the pilot program would not be impacted by the expiration of the pilot program.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed extension of the pilot program, which permits additional exercise settlement values, would provide greater opportunities for investors to manage risk through the use of FLEX Options. Further, the Exchange believes that it has not experienced any adverse effects from the operation of the pilot program, including any adverse market volatility effects that might occur as a result of large FLEX exercises in FLEX Option series that expire near Non-FLEX expirations and use a p.m. settlement. The Exchange also believes that the extension of the exercise settlement values pilot does not raise any unique regulatory concerns. In particular, although p.m. settlements may raise questions with the Commission, the Exchange believes that, based on the Exchange's experience in trading FLEX Options to date and over the pilot period, market impact and investor protection concerns will not be raised by this rule change. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change would continue to provide Trading Permit Holders and investors with additional opportunities to trade customized options in an exchange environment (which offers the added benefits of transparency, price discovery, liquidity, and financial stability as compared to the over-the-counter market) and subject to exchange-based rules, and investors would benefit as a result.
Cboe Options does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes there is sufficient investor interest and demand in the pilot program to warrant its extension. The Exchange believes that, for the period that the pilot has been in operation, the program has provided investors with additional means of managing their risk exposures and carrying out their investment objectives. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that it has not experienced any adverse market effects with respect to the pilot program, including any adverse market volatility effects that might occur as a result of large FLEX exercises in FLEX Option series that expire near Non-Flex expirations and use a p.m. settlement. Cboe Options believes that the restriction actually places the Exchange at a competitive disadvantage to its OTC counterparts in the market for customized options, and unnecessarily limits market participants' ability to trade in an exchange environment that offers the added benefits of transparency, price discovery, liquidity, and financial stability. Therefore, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as it will allow the pilot program to continue uninterrupted, thereby avoiding investor confusion that could result from a temporary interruption in the pilot program. For this reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Social Security Administration.
Notice of rescission of Social Security Rulings.
In accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1), the Acting Commissioner of Social Security gives notice of the rescission of Social Security Rulings (SSR): SSR 67-28; SSR 68-13; SSR 68-36; SSR 68-37; SSR 68-52; SSR 68-78; SSR 70-23c; SSR 72-27; and SSR 74-27c.
The rescission is effective May 10, 2018.
Linda Appler, Social Security Administration, (410) 966-6760 or
Although 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2) do not require us to publish this notice, we are doing so in accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1).
Through SSRs, we make available to the public precedential decisions relating to the Federal old-age, survivors, disability, supplemental security income, and special veterans benefits programs. We may base SSRs on determinations or decisions made at all levels of administrative adjudication, Federal court decisions, Commissioner's decisions, opinions of the Office of the General Counsel, or other interpretations of the law and regulations.
We are rescinding the following SSRs:
• SSR 67-28: Section 228(c)(1) and (h)(2).—Special Age 72 Payments For Uninsured Individuals—Reduction Because Of Eligibility For Governmental Pension;
• SSR 68-13: Sections 228(c)(1) and 228(h)(2).—Special Age 72 Payments—Governmental Pension System—Teachers' Retirement Fund;
• SSR 68-36: Section 228(c) and 228(h)(2).—Special Age 72 Payment—Reduction Because Of Eligibility For Veterans' Administration Pension;
• SSR 68-37: Section 228(c) and (h).—Special Age 72 Payment—Eligibility For Teacher's Annuity Purchased From Personal Funds Not Cause For Offset;
• SSR 68-52: Sections 228(c)(1), 228(h)(2) and (3).—Special Age 72 Payments For Uninsured Individual—Reduction Due To Commutation Of Periodic Pension;
• SSR 68-78: Sections 228(c)(1) and (h)(2).—Special Age 72 Payments For Uninsured Individuals—Reduction
• SSR 70-23c: Section 228(c).—Special Age 72 Payments—Effect On Claimant's Eligibility Where Application Not Filed By Spouse Who Is Eligible For Periodic Benefit Under Governmental Pension System;
• SSR 72-27: Sections 228 (of Social Security Act) and 103 of Social Security Amendments of 1965.—Special Age 72 and Hospital Insurance Benefits—5 Years Continuous Residence Requirement; and
• SSR 74-27c: Sections 205(g), 228(a) and (e) (42 U.S.C. 405(g), 428(a), and 428(e)).—Special Age 72 Payments—Application and Residence Requirements—Constitutionally [
These SSRs interpret and apply our rules on “Special Payments at Age 72” in 20 CFR 404.380, 404.381, 404.382, 404.383, and 404.384. In today's
Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, Department of State.
Notice.
A determination has been made that a number of foreign persons have engaged in activities that warrant the imposition of measures pursuant to Section 3 of the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act. The Act provides for penalties on foreign entities and individuals for the transfer to or acquisition from Iran since January 1, 1999; the transfer to or acquisition from Syria since January 1, 2005; or the transfer to or acquisition from North Korea since January 1, 2006, of goods, services, or technology controlled under multilateral control lists (Missile Technology Control Regime, Australia Group, Chemical Weapons Convention, Nuclear Suppliers Group, Wassenaar Arrangement) or otherwise having the potential to make a material contribution to the development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or cruise or ballistic missile systems. The latter category includes items of the same kind as those on multilateral lists but falling below the control list parameters when it is determined that such items have the potential of making a material contribution to WMD or cruise or ballistic missile systems, items on U.S. national control lists for WMD/missile reasons that are not on multilateral lists, and other items with the potential of making such a material contribution when added through case-by-case decisions.
April 30, 2018.
On April 30, 2018 the U.S. Government applied the measures authorized in Section 3 of the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act (Pub. L. 109-353) against the following foreign persons identified in the report submitted pursuant to Section 2(a) of the Act:
Abascience Tech Co., Ltd. (China) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
Easy Fashion Metal Products Trade Company [aka Easyfashion Industries] (China) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
Emily Liu (Chinese individual);
Karl Lee [aka Li Fangwei] (Chinese individual);
Raybeam Optronics Co., Ltd (China) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
Shanghai Rotech Pharmaceutical Engineering Company (China) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
Sinotech (Dalian) Carbon and Graphite Corporation (SCGC) (China) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
Sunway Tech Co., Ltd (China) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
T-Rubber Co. Ltd (China) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
Sakr Factory for Developmental Industries (Egypt) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
Mojtaba Ghasemi (Iranian individual);
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Qods Force (IRGC QF) (Iran) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
Pars Aviation Service Company (PASC) (Iran) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
Defense Industries Organization (DIO) (Iran) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
Saeng Pil Trading Corporation (SPTC) (North Korea) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
Second Economic Committee (SEC) Korea Ryonbong General Corporation (North Korea) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
183rd Guard Air Defense Missile Regiment (Russia) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
Instrument Design Bureau (KBP) Tula (Russia) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
Gatchina Surface-to-Air Missile Training Center (Russia) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) (Russia) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
18th Central Scientific Research Institute (18th TsNII) Scientific Research Center (NITs) (Kursk) (Russia) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
Russian Research and Production Concern (BARL) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
Scientific Studies and Research Center (SSRC) (Syria) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
Lebanese Hizballah (Syria) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
Megatrade (Syria) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
Syrian Air Force (Syria) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
Seden Denizcilik Hizmeleri Sanayi de Ticaret Limited (Turkey) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof; and
Yona Star International (United Arab Emirates) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 3 of the Act, the following measures are imposed on these persons:
1. No department or agency of the United States Government may procure
2. No department or agency of the United States Government may provide any assistance to these foreign persons, and these persons shall not be eligible to participate in any assistance program of the United States Government, except to the extent that the Secretary of State otherwise may determine;
3. No United States Government sales to these foreign persons of any item on the United States Munitions List are permitted, and all sales to these persons of any defense articles, defense services, or design and construction services under the Arms Export Control Act are terminated; and
4. No new individual licenses shall be granted for the transfer to these foreign persons of items the export of which is controlled under the Export Administration Act of 1979 or the Export Administration Regulations, and any existing such licenses are suspended.
These measures shall be implemented by the responsible departments and agencies of the United States Government and will remain in place for two years from the effective date, except to the extent that the Secretary of State may subsequently determine otherwise.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice and request for applications.
The United States Trade Representative (Trade Representative) and the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) have established a new four-year charter term ending in February 2022, and are accepting applications from qualified individuals interested in serving as a member of an Industry Trade Advisory Committee (ITAC). The ITACs provide detailed policy and technical advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary and the Trade Representative regarding trade barriers, negotiation of trade agreements, and implementation of existing trade agreements affecting industry sectors, and perform other advisory functions relevant to U.S. trade policy matters. There currently are opportunities for membership on each ITAC and we will accept nominations throughout the charter term.
We will accept nominations for membership on the ITACs throughout the four-year charter term.
Submit nominations via email to
Ingrid Mitchem, Director, Industry Trade Advisory Center, U.S. Department of Commerce at 202-482-3268, or Gregory Walters, Assistant United States Trade Representative for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement at
Section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2155), establishes a private-sector trade advisory system to ensure that U.S. trade policy and trade negotiation objectives adequately reflect U.S. commercial and economic interests. Section 135(c)(2) (19 U.S.C. 2155(c)(2)) directs the President to establish sectoral or functional trade advisory committees, as appropriate, including representatives of industry, labor, agriculture, and services, including small business, in the sector or functional area concerned, to provide detailed policy and technical advice, information, and recommendations regarding trade barriers, negotiation of trade agreements, and implementation of existing trade agreements affecting industry sectors, and perform other advisory functions relevant to U.S. trade policy matters as requested.
The ITACs provide detailed policy and technical advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary and the Trade Representative on trade policy matters including: (1) Negotiating objectives and bargaining positions before entering into trade agreements; (2) the impact of the implementation of trade agreements on the relevant sector; (3) matters concerning the operation of any trade agreement once entered into; and (4) other matters arising in connection with the development, implementation, and administration of the trade policy of the United States. The nonpartisan, industry input provided by the ITACs is important in developing unified trade policy objectives and positions when the United States negotiates and implements trade agreements.
The ITACs address market-access problems, trade barriers, tariffs, discriminatory foreign procurement practices, and information, marketing, and advocacy needs of their industry sector. Eleven ITACs (ITACS 1-11) provide advice and information on issues that affect specific sectors of U.S. industry. Three ITACs (ITACs 12-14) focus on crosscutting functional issues that affect all industry sectors and include specifically appointed members along with non-voting members from the industry specific ITACs to represent a broad range of industry perspectives. The ITACs may address other trade policy issues,
When the Trade Representative and the Secretary organize the ITACs, the Trade Act requires that they consult with interested private organizations and consider:
• Patterns of actual or potential competition between U.S. industry and agriculture and foreign enterprise in international trade.
• The character of the nontariff barriers and other distortions affecting such competition.
• The necessity for reasonable limits on the number and size of the ITACs.
• That the product lines covered by each ITAC are reasonably related.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the U.S. Department of Commerce requested comments on proposed changes to the slate of ITACs (83 FR 3253) and received 23 written submissions in response. A majority of the responses were a substantially similar letter in opposition to merging ITAC 7 and ITAC 9. A significantly smaller portion advocated against the elimination of the Committee of Chairs.
We have carefully considered these submissions and other factors including the nature of the U.S. industry in various sectors, the level of interest in serving on an ITAC (using the number of members and applications for appointment during the 2014-2018 charter terms), the level of activity of each ITAC (using the number of meetings and recommendations submitted during the 2014-2018 charter
The ITACs are subject to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Each ITAC consists of members with experience relevant to the industry sector for ITACs 1 through 11 or the subject area for ITACs 12 through 14. All ITAC members serve in a representative capacity (there are no special government employees (SGEs)) and present the views and interests of a sponsoring U.S. entity or U.S. organization and the entity's or organization's subsector (if applicable). In selecting members, the Secretary and the Trade Representative consider the nominee's ability to carry out the objectives of the ITAC, including knowledge and expertise of the industry and of trade matters relevant to the work of the ITAC, and ensuring that the ITAC is balanced in terms of points of view, demographics, geography, and entity or organization size. Appointments are made without regard to political affiliation.
The Secretary and the Trade Representative appoint all ITAC members for a term of four-years or until the ITAC charter expires, and members serve at the discretion of the Secretary and the Trade Representative. Individuals can be reappointed for any number of terms. Appointments are made at the time an ITAC is re-chartered and periodically throughout the four-year charter term. Appointments expire at the end of the charter term, in this case, on February 14, 2022.
ITAC members serve without compensation, including reimbursement of expenses. Members are responsible for all expenses they incur to attend meetings or otherwise participate in ITAC activities.
The ITACs meet as needed, depending on various factors such as the level of activity of trade negotiations and the needs of the Secretary and the Trade Representative. On average, each ITAC meet six times a year in Washington, DC.
The Secretary and the Trade Representative are soliciting nominations for membership on the ITACs.
To apply for membership, an applicant must meet the following eligibility criteria:
1. The applicant must be a U.S. citizen.
2. The applicant cannot be a full-time employee of a U.S. governmental entity.
3. The applicant cannot be registered with the U.S. Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
4. The applicant must be able to obtain and maintain a security clearance.
5. The applicant must represent either:
a. A U.S. entity that is directly engaged in the import or export of goods or services or that provides services in direct support of the international trading activities of other entities; or
b. A U.S. organization that trades internationally, represents members that trade internationally, or, consistent with the needs of an ITAC as determined by the Secretary and the Trade Representative, represents members who have a demonstrated interest in international trade.
For eligibility purposes, a “U.S. entity” is a for-profit firm engaged in commercial, industrial, or professional activities that is incorporated in the United States (or is an unincorporated U.S. firm with its principal place of business in the United States) that is controlled by U.S. citizens or by other U.S. entities. An entity is not a U.S. entity if 50 percent plus one share of its stock (if a corporation, or a similar ownership interest of an unincorporated entity) is known to be controlled, directly or indirectly, by non-U.S. citizens or non-U.S. entities.
For eligibility purposes, a “U.S. organization” is an organization, including a trade association, labor union or organization, and nongovernmental organization (NGO), established under the laws of the United States, that is controlled by U.S. citizens, by another U.S. organization (or organizations), or by a U.S. entity (or entities), as determined based on its board of directors (or comparable governing body), membership, and funding sources, as applicable. To qualify as a U.S. organization, more than 50 percent of the board of directors (or comparable governing body) and more than 50 percent of the membership of the organization to be represented must be U.S. citizens, U.S. organizations, or U.S. entities. Additionally, in order for an NGO to qualify as a U.S. organization, at least 50 percent of the NGO's annual revenue must be attributable to nongovernmental U.S. sources.
An applicant who will represent an entity or organization known to have 10 percent or greater non-U.S. ownership of its shares or equity, non-U.S. board members, non-U.S. membership, or non-U.S. funding sources, as applicable, must certify that this non-U.S. interest does not constitute control and will not adversely affect his/her ability to serve as a trade advisor to the United States.
The Secretary and the Trade Representative have appointed, and will consider nominees, who represent the public health or health care community to ITACs 3 and 13, and environmental viewpoints to ITACs 3 and 5.
To be considered for ITAC membership, interested persons should submit the following to the Director of the Industry Trade Advisory Center at the U.S. Department of Commerce at
1. Name, title, affiliation, and contact information of the individual requesting consideration.
2. The ITAC for which the individual is applying for appointment.
3. A sponsor letter on the entity's or organization's letterhead containing a brief description of why the Secretary and the Trade Representative should consider the individual for membership.
4. The individual's personal resume or comprehensive biography demonstrating knowledge of international trade issues.
5. An affirmative statement that the individual and the sponsoring entity or organization s/he represents meet all eligibility requirements.
6. Information regarding the sponsoring entity or organization, including the control of the entity or organization to be represented and the entity's or organization's size and ownership, product or service line, and trade activities.
7. You can find information on the additional requirements for consultants and legal advisors, which vary depending on the nature of the entity or organization and the interests the individual will represent, on the International Trade Administration website at
The Secretary and the Trade Representative will consider applicants who meet the eligibility criteria based on the following factors: Ability to represent the sponsoring U.S. entity's or U.S. organization's and its subsector's interests on trade matters; knowledge of and experience in trade matters relevant to the work of the ITAC; and ensuring that the ITAC is balanced in terms of points of view, demographics, geography, and entity or organization size.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Fifty First RTCA SC-206 Aeronautical Information and Meteorological Data Link Services (AIS) Plenary.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Fifty First RTCA SC-206 Aeronautical Information and Meteorological Data Link Services (AIS) Plenary.
The meeting will be held June 11-15, 2018 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at: AOPA HQ, 411 Aviation Way, Frederick, MD 21701.
Karan Hofmann at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Fifty First RTCA SC-206 Aeronautical Information and Meteorological Data Link Services (AIS) Plenary. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of information collection and request for comment.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its implementing regulations, FRA is informing the public that FRA has made five proposed revisions to the Quarterly Positive Train Control (PTC) Progress Report Form (Form FRA F 6180.165) and Annual PTC Progress Report Form (Form FRA F 6180.166), which the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) previously approved on August 15, 2017, under its regular processing procedures. Before submitting this revised information collection request (ICR) to OMB for regular clearance and approval, FRA is soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the proposed ICR.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 9, 2018.
Submit written comments on the ICR activities by mail to either: Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W33-497, Washington, DC 20590; or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W34-212, Washington, DC 20590. Commenters requesting FRA to acknowledge receipt of their respective comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard stating, “Comments on OMB Control Number 2130-0553,” and
Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W33-497, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6292); or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W34-212, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6132).
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60-days' notice to the public to allow comment on information collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
Specifically, FRA invites interested parties to comment on the following ICR regarding: (1) Whether the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether the activities will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of the information collection activities, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3) ways for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (4) ways for FRA to minimize the burden of information collection activities on the public, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
FRA believes that soliciting public comment will promote its efforts to reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of information that Federal regulations mandate. In summary, FRA reasons that comments received will advance three objectives: (1) Reduce reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection requirements in a “user-friendly” format to improve the use of such information; and (3) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce information requested.
Under the Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015 (PTCEI Act), each railroad subject to 49 U.S.C. 20157(a) must submit an annual progress report to FRA by March 31, 2016, and annually thereafter, until PTC system implementation is completed. 49 U.S.C. 20157(c)(1). The PTCEI Act specifically requires each railroad to provide certain information in the annual reports regarding its progress toward implementing a PTC system, in addition to any other information FRA requests.
Under its statutory and regulatory investigative authorities, FRA currently requires, and seeks to continue requiring, each subject railroad to submit Quarterly PTC Progress Reports (Form FRA F 6180.165) and Annual PTC Progress Reports (Form FRA F 6180.166) on its PTC system implementation progress.
Specifically, in addition to the Annual PTC Progress Report (Form FRA F 6180.166) due each March 31 under 49 U.S.C. 20157(c)(1), railroads must provide quarterly progress reports covering the preceding three-month period and submit the forms to FRA on the dates in the following table until full PTC system implementation is completed:
Each railroad must submit its Quarterly PTC Progress Reports on Form FRA F 6180.165 and its Annual PTC Progress Reports on Form FRA F 6180.166 on FRA's Secure Information Repository at
On August 15, 2017, OMB approved the Quarterly PTC Progress Report (Form FRA F 6180.165) and Annual PTC Progress Report (Form FRA F 6180.166) for a period of one year, expiring on August 31, 2018. The current Quarterly PTC Progress Report Form and Annual PTC Progress Report Form, as approved through August 31, 2018, can be accessed and downloaded in FRA's eLibrary at:
Following the 60-day public comment period after this notice is published, FRA will request OMB's re-approval of the forms, with the five changes described below. First, in Section 1 of the Quarterly PTC Progress Report Form (FRA F 6180.165), FRA proposes revising the row “Territories Where Revenue Service Demonstration Has
Second, in footnotes 4 and 6 of the Quarterly PTC Progress Report Form (FRA F 6180.165), FRA proposes adding a hyperlink to Appendix A. The footnotes currently state: “If a particular category listed in this table does not apply to the railroad's technology, please indicate `N/A.' A railroad may add categories or subcategories if it wants to provide more detail.” FRA proposes adding the phrase “in Appendix A” to the second sentence with a hyperlink to that appendix to the form, as it will help direct railroads to the available section of the PDF where they can provide additional information. A hyperlink to Appendix A was in the corresponding footnotes in the prior version of the Quarterly PTC Progress Report Form that OMB approved through June 30, 2017, but the hyperlink was omitted in error from the current version of the form. This proposed change (
Third, in Section 4 (entitled “Installation/Track Segment Progress—Current Status”) of both the quarterly form and the annual form, FRA proposes replacing the “Testing” option in the drop-down menu with two more precise options—
Fourth, with respect to only the Annual PTC Progress Report Form (FRA F 6180.166), FRA proposes to delete a now inapplicable instruction from footnote 7 in Section 4, which stated,
FRA delayed the due date for submitting that specific information in 2017 only, per OMB's request, to ensure railroads had sufficient time to compile and provide the information. FRA proposes removing that note from footnote 7 as it is no longer applicable or necessary. By statute, a railroad's Annual PTC Progress Report is due by March 31st each year. 49 U.S.C. 20157(c)(1).
Fifth, with respect to both the quarterly form and the annual form, FRA proposes making certain changes to Section 6 (entitled “Update on Interoperability Progress”). FRA proposes removing the portion of the instruction that states a host railroad must provide information about the status of each tenant railroad's rolling stock “if the tenant does not have a separate PTCIP on file.” FRA proposes removing this limiting instruction because FRA needs to know the PTC implementation status of any tenant railroad that operates on the host railroad's property, except any tenant railroad that is subject to an exception under 49 CFR 236.1006(b). In addition, before the final column in the table in Section 6, FRA proposes adding a column entitled, “Scheduled Completion Date for Interoperability Testing.” This information is necessary for FRA to understand the progress a host railroad and each of its required tenant railroads are jointly making toward testing and achieving PTC system interoperability, consistent with host railroad's PTC Implementation Plan and/or PTC Safety Plan. FRA estimates the additional burden for a host railroad to complete this new reporting requirement would be, on average, approximately 2.5 hours for Class I railroads and large passenger railroads; 1.25 hours for Class II and medium passenger railroads; and thirty minutes for Class III, terminal, and small passenger railroads.
The associated collection of information is summarized below. FRA will submit this information collection request to OMB for regular clearance as required by the PRA.
FRA notes that the 22.84-hour estimate is an average for all railroads. FRA estimated the quarterly reporting burden is approximately 43 hours for the 11 Class I and large passenger railroads per quarterly form, approximately 28.75 hours for the 11 Class II and medium passenger railroads per quarterly form, and approximately 7.75 hours for the 19 Class III, terminal, and small passenger railroads per quarterly form.
FRA notes that the 39.65-hour estimate is an average for all railroads. FRA estimated the annual reporting burden is approximately 62.5 hours for the 11 Class I and large passenger railroads per annual form, approximately 41.25 hours for the 11 Class II and medium passenger railroads per annual form, and approximately 25.5 hours for the 19 Class III, terminal, and small passenger railroads per annual form.
Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b), 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for modification of special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before May 25, 2018.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of actions on special permit applications.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein.
Comments must be received on or before June 11, 2018.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before June 11, 2018.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Drug Enforcement Administration proposes placing beta-hydroxythiofentanyl (
Comments must be submitted electronically or postmarked on or before June 11, 2018.
Interested persons may file a request for hearing or waiver of hearing pursuant to 21 CFR 1308.44 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1316.45 and/or 1316.47, as applicable. Requests for hearing and waivers of an opportunity for a hearing or to participate in a hearing must be received on or before June 11, 2018.
Interested persons may file written comments on this proposal in accordance with 21 CFR 1308.43(g). Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the last day of the comment period. To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. DEA-484” on all electronic and written correspondence, including any attachments.
•
•
•
Michael J. Lewis, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.
Please note that all comments received in response to this docket are considered part of the public record. They will, unless reasonable cause is given, be made available by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for public inspection online at
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made publicly available, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment.
Comments containing personal identifying information and confidential business information identified as directed above will be made publicly available in redacted form. If a comment has so much confidential business information or personal identifying information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be made publicly available. Comments posted to
An electronic copy of this document and supplemental information to this proposed rule are available at
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this action is a formal rulemaking “on the record after opportunity for a hearing.” Such proceedings are conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551-559. 21 CFR 1308.41-1308.45; 21 CFR part 1316, subpart D. Such requests or notices must conform to the requirements of 21 CFR 1308.44(a) or (b), and 1316.47 or 1316.48, as applicable, and include a statement of the person's interests in the proposed scheduling action, whether the person is adversely affected or aggrieved, and the objections or issues, if any, concerning which the person desires to be heard at a hearing. Any waiver must conform to the requirements of 21 CFR 1308.44(c) and may include a written statement regarding the interested person's position on the matters of fact and law involved in any hearing.
Please note that pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), the purpose and subject matter of a hearing held in relation to this rulemaking are restricted to: “(A) find[ing] that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse, and
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) provides that proceedings for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of the scheduling of any drug or other substance may be initiated by the Attorney General (1) on his own motion; (2) at the request of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
On May 12, 2016, the DEA published a final order in the
The Acting Administrator, on his own motion pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), is initiating proceedings under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) to permanently schedule beta-hydroxythiofentanyl. The DEA has gathered and reviewed the available information regarding the pharmacology, chemistry, trafficking, actual abuse, pattern of abuse, and the relative potential for abuse for beta-hydroxythiofentanyl. On December 8, 2016, the Acting Administrator submitted a request to the Assistant Secretary to provide the DEA with a scientific and medical evaluation of available information and a scheduling recommendation for butyryl fentanyl and beta-hydroxythiofentanyl, in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(b) and (c). In a letter dated November 1, 2017, DEA notified HHS that it no longer required a scientific and medical evaluation for butyryl fentanyl because the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), at its 60th session, added butyryl fentanyl to Schedule I of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961. On April 20, 2018, the DEA published a final scheduling order for butyryl fentanyl (83 FR 17486) to meet international treaty obligations pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(1).
Upon evaluating the scientific and medical evidence, on April 27, 2018, the Assistant Secretary submitted to the Acting Administrator HHS's scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation for beta-hydroxythiofentanyl. Upon receipt of the scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation from the HHS, the DEA reviewed the documents and all other relevant data, and conducted its own eight-factor analysis of the abuse potential of beta-hydroxythiofentanyl in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(c).
As discussed in the background section, the Acting Administrator is initiating proceedings, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), to add beta-hydroxythiofentanyl permanently to schedule I. The DEA has reviewed the scientific and medical evaluations and scheduling recommendation, received from HHS, and all other relevant data and conducted its own eight-factor analysis of the abuse potential of beta-hydroxythiofentanyl pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(c). Included below is a brief summary of each factor as analyzed by the HHS and the DEA, and as considered by the DEA in its proposed scheduling action. Please note that both the DEA 8-Factor and HHS 8-Factor analyses and the Assistant Secretary's April 27, 2018, letter, are available in their entirety under the tab “Supporting Documents” of the public docket for this action at
1.
The abuse potential of beta-hydroxythiofentanyl is associated with its pharmacological similarity to other schedule I and II mu-opioid receptor agonist substances which have a high potential for abuse. Similar to morphine, fentanyl and several schedule I opioid substances that are structurally related to fentanyl, beta-hydroxythiofentanyl has been shown to bind and act as a μ-opioid receptor agonist.
beta-Hydroxythiofentanyl has no approved medical use in the United States and has been encountered on the illicit drug market. The use of beta-hydroxythiofentanyl has been associated with adverse outcomes to include death. Because beta-hydroxythiofentanyl is not an approved drug product, a practitioner may not legally prescribe it, and this substance cannot be dispensed to an individual. Therefore, the use of beta-hydroxythiofentanyl is without medical advice, and accordingly, leads to the conclusion that beta-hydroxythiofentanyl is abused for its opioidergic properties. There are no legitimate drug channels for beta-hydroxythiofentanyl as a marketed drug product but it's available for purchase from legitimate chemical companies because it is used in scientific research. However, despite the limited legitimate use of this substance, reports from public health and law enforcement communicate that beta-hydroxythiofentanyl is being abused and taken in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to an individual's health. This is evidenced by the positive toxicological identification of beta-hydroxythiofentanyl in several (n=25) overdose deaths. Data from forensic databases can be used as an indicator of illicit activity with drugs and abuse
2.
3.
There is no FDA approved marketing application for a drug product containing beta-hydroxythiofentanyl for any therapeutic indication in the United States. Moreover, there are no clinical studies or petitioners of which has claimed an accepted medical use in the United States for this substance.
4.
5.
Currently the United States is in the midst of a prescription and illicit opioid abuse epidemic. According to NFLIS, in the last few years, there has been marked increase in the encounters of synthetic opioids such as fentanyl and substances that are structurally related to fentanyl. In parallel to this increase in law enforcement encounters, there has been a corresponding marked increase in deaths related to synthetic opioids. beta-Hydroxythiofentanyl is a synthetic opioid that is structurally related to fentanyl. Therefore, the issue of fentanyl and substances structurally related to fentanyl abuse has become a major public health problem.
6.
7.
8.
The CSA establishes five schedules of controlled substances known as schedules I, II, III, IV, and V. The CSA also outlines the findings required to place a drug or other substance in any particular schedule. 21 U.S.C. 812(b). After consideration of the analysis and recommendation of the Assistant Secretary for HHS and review of all other available data, the Acting Administrator of the DEA, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a) and 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1), finds that:
1. beta-Hydroxythiofentanyl has a high potential for abuse;
2. beta- Hydroxythiofentanyl has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; and
3. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of beta-hydroxythiofentanyl under medical supervision.
Based on these findings, the Acting Administrator of the DEA concludes that beta-hydroxythiofentanyl (
If this rule is finalized as proposed, beta-hydroxythiofentanyl would continue
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
After the initial inventory, every DEA registrant must take a new inventory of all stocks of controlled substances (including beta-hydroxythiofentanyl) on hand every two years pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11.
6.
7.
8.
9.
In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this proposed scheduling action is subject to formal rulemaking procedures done “on the record after opportunity for a hearing,” which are conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. The CSA sets forth the criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Such actions are exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to section 3(d)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and the principles reaffirmed in Executive Order 13563.
This proposed rule does not meet the definition of an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action, and the repeal and cost offset requirements of Executive Order 13771 have not been triggered. OMB has previously determined that formal rulemaking actions concerning the scheduling of controlled substances, such as this rule, are not significant regulatory actions under Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
This proposed regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.
This proposed rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132. The proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13175. It does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Administrator, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-602, has reviewed this proposed rule and by approving it, certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. On May 12, 2016, the DEA published a final order to temporarily place beta-hydroxythiofentanyl in schedule I of the CSA pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of 21 U.S.C. 811(h). The DEA estimates that all entities handling or planning to handle beta-hydroxythiofentanyl have already established and implemented the systems and processes required to handle this substances. There are currently 15 registrations authorized to handle beta-hydroxythiofentanyl, as well as a number of registered analytical labs that are authorized to handle schedule I controlled substances generally. These 15 registrations represent 13 entities, of which 10 are small entities. Therefore, the DEA estimates 10 small entities are affected by this proposed rule.
A review of the 15 registrations indicates that all entities that currently handle beta-hydroxythiofentanyl also handle other schedule I controlled substances, and have established and implemented (or maintain) the systems and processes required to handle beta-hydroxythiofentanyl. Therefore, the DEA anticipates that this proposed rule will impose minimal or no economic impact on any affected entities; and thus, will not have a significant economic impact on any of the 10 affected small entities. Therefore, the DEA has concluded that this proposed rule will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not impose a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. This action would not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. 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.
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out above, the DEA proposes to amend 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:
21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), 956(b), unless otherwise noted.
The addition to read as follows:
(b) * * *
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Temporary rule; temporary scheduling order; extension.
The Acting Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is issuing this temporary scheduling order to extend the temporary schedule I status of beta-hydroxythiofentanyl (
This temporary scheduling order, which extends the final order (81 FR 29492, May 12, 2016), is effective May 12, 2018 and expires on May 12, 2019. If this order is made permanent, the DEA will publish a document in the
Michael J. Lewis, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.
On May 12, 2016, the Acting Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) published a final order in the
The Acting Administrator of the DEA, on his own motion pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), has initiated proceedings under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) to permanently schedule beta-hydroxythiofentanyl. The DEA has gathered and reviewed the available information regarding the pharmacology, chemistry, trafficking, actual abuse, pattern of abuse, and the relative potential for abuse for this substance. On December 8, 2016, the DEA submitted a request to the HHS to provide the DEA with a scientific and medical evaluation of available information and a scheduling recommendation for butyryl fentanyl and beta-hydroxythiofentanyl, and in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(b) and (c). In a letter dated November 1, 2017, DEA notified HHS that it no longer required a scientific and medical evaluation for butyryl fentanyl because the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), at its 60th session, added butyryl fentanyl to Schedule I of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961. On April 20, 2018, the DEA published a final scheduling order for butyryl fentanyl (83 FR17486) to meet international treaty obligations pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(1).
Upon evaluating the scientific and medical evidence, on April 27, 2018, the HHS submitted to the Acting Administrator of the DEA its scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation for beta-hydroxythiofentanyl. Upon receipt of the scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation from the HHS, the DEA reviewed the documents and all other relevant data, and conducted its own eight-factor analysis of the abuse potential of beta-hydroxythiofentanyl in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(c). The DEA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for the placement of beta-hydroxythiofentanyl in schedule I elsewhere in this issue of the
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2), the Acting Administrator of the DEA orders that the temporary scheduling of beta-hydroxythiofentanyl, including its isomers, esters and ethers and salts of isomers, esters, ethers, be extended for one year, or until the permanent scheduling proceeding is completed, whichever occurs first.
In accordance with this temporary scheduling order, the schedule I requirements for handling beta- hydroxythiofentanyl, including its isomers, esters and ethers and salts of isomers, esters, ethers, will remain in effect for one year, or until the permanent scheduling proceeding is completed, whichever occurs first.
The CSA provides for an expedited temporary scheduling action where such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h). The Attorney General may, by order, schedule a substance in schedule I on a temporary basis.
To the extent that 21 U.S.C. 811(h) directs that temporary scheduling actions be issued by order and sets forth the procedures by which such orders are to be issued and extended, the DEA believes that the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this
Additionally, this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), section 3(f), and, accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
As noted above, this action is an order, not a rule. Accordingly, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) is inapplicable, as it applies only to rules. However, if this were a rule, pursuant to the CRA, “any rule for which an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, shall take effect at such time as the federal agency promulgating the rule determines.” 5 U.S.C. 808(2). It is in the public interest to maintain the temporary placement of beta-hydroxythiofentanyl in schedule I because it poses a public health risk. The temporary scheduling action was taken pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h), which is specifically designed to enable the DEA to act in an expeditious manner to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. Under 21 U.S.C. 811(h), temporary scheduling orders are not subject to notice and comment rulemaking procedures. The DEA understands that the CSA frames temporary scheduling actions as orders rather than rules to ensure that the process moves swiftly, and this extension of the temporary scheduling order continues to serve that purpose. For the same reasons that underlie 21 U.S.C. 811(h), that is, the need to place this substance in schedule I because it poses an imminent hazard to public safety, it would be contrary to the public interest to delay implementation of this extension of the temporary scheduling order. Therefore, in accordance with section 808(2) of the CRA, this order extending the temporary scheduling order shall take effect immediately upon its publication. The DEA has submitted a copy of this temporary order to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General, although such filing is not required under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional Review Act), 5 U.S.C. 801-808 because, as noted above, this action is an order, not a rule.
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 |