| Page Range | 22587-22829 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 22717 - Sunshine Act: Notice of Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 22713 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 83 FR 22613 - Certain Quartz Surface Products From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation | |
| 83 FR 22618 - Certain Quartz Surface Products From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation | |
| 83 FR 22612 - Notice of Request To Renew an Approved Information Collection (Requirements To Notify FSIS of Adulterated or Misbranded Product, Prepare and Maintain Written Recall Procedures, and Document Certain HACCP Plan Reassessments) | |
| 83 FR 22604 - Eliminating Unnecessary Requirements for Hog Carcass Cleaning | |
| 83 FR 22607 - Pennsylvania Regulatory Program; Correction | |
| 83 FR 22611 - Notice of Request for Revision of an Approved Information Collection (Voluntary Recalls of Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products) | |
| 83 FR 22607 - Pennsylvania Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program | |
| 83 FR 22751 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee: Change | |
| 83 FR 22653 - Applications for New Awards; Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowship Program | |
| 83 FR 22649 - Applications for New Awards; Fulbright-Hays Group Projects Abroad Program | |
| 83 FR 22644 - Applications for New Award; Center To Improve Social and Emotional Learning and School Safety-Cooperative Agreement | |
| 83 FR 22700 - National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 22700 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 22701 - National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 22700 - Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 22716 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 83 FR 22717 - Product Change-Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 83 FR 22716 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 83 FR 22668 - Applicability Determination Index (ADI) Data System Recent Posting: Agency Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, Emission Guidelines and Federal Plan Requirements for Existing Sources, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program | |
| 83 FR 22688 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 22678 - Notice of Order Denying Petition To Set Aside Consent Agreement and Proposed Final Order | |
| 83 FR 22752 - Survey of Foreign Ownership of U.S. Securities as of June 30, 2018 | |
| 83 FR 22690 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Data on Tobacco Products and Communications | |
| 83 FR 22593 - Removal of the Federal Reformulated Gasoline Program from the Northern Kentucky Portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton Ozone Maintenance Area | |
| 83 FR 22712 - Certain Non-Volatile Memory Devices and Products Containing the Same; Notice of Request for Statement on the Public Interest | |
| 83 FR 22622 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 22624 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 22623 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Stock ID Review Workshop for Cobia (Rachycentron canadum) | |
| 83 FR 22592 - Safety Zones; Fireworks and Swim Events in Captain of the Port New York Zone | |
| 83 FR 22657 - Agency Information Collection Extension | |
| 83 FR 22741 - Petition for Approval of Product Safety Plan | |
| 83 FR 22661 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725G); Comment Request; Revision | |
| 83 FR 22659 - Portland General Electric Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 83 FR 22587 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Ceiling Fan Light Kits | |
| 83 FR 22740 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of an Information Collection: Financial Responsibility, Trucking and Freight Forwarding | |
| 83 FR 22687 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 83 FR 22688 - Rescission of FTR Bulletins | |
| 83 FR 22692 - HHS Blueprint to Lower Drug Prices and Reduce Out-of-Pocket Costs | |
| 83 FR 22601 - Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region; 2017-2018 Commercial Closure for King Mackerel in the Gulf of Mexico Northern Zone | |
| 83 FR 22602 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries | |
| 83 FR 22739 - Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs | |
| 83 FR 22684 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 22681 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 22749 - Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Ford Motor Company | |
| 83 FR 22742 - Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; BMW of North America, LLC | |
| 83 FR 22744 - Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements | |
| 83 FR 22738 - Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC) Meeting Notice | |
| 83 FR 22609 - Mandatory Deposit of Electronic-Only Books: Extension of Comment Period | |
| 83 FR 22702 - Public Meeting of the National Geospatial Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 22714 - Holtec International HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility Project | |
| 83 FR 22796 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rules in Connection With the Migration of Cboe C2 to Cboe EDGX Options Technology | |
| 83 FR 22740 - Motorcyclist Advisory Council to the Federal Highway Administration | |
| 83 FR 22711 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Plans and Information | |
| 83 FR 22689 - Blood Products Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 22589 - Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 22704 - Quarterly Status Report of Water Service, Repayment, and Other Water-Related Contract Actions | |
| 83 FR 22658 - Meeting of the Defense Programs Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 22685 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB | |
| 83 FR 22710 - Central Valley Project Improvement Act Water Management Plans | |
| 83 FR 22687 - Information Collection; Claims and Appeals | |
| 83 FR 22713 - Advisory Board; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 22743 - Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP17-002 | |
| 83 FR 22660 - Order Establishing Briefing Schedule: Duke Energy Corporation Progress Energy, Inc.; Carolina Power & Light Company | |
| 83 FR 22664 - Commission Information Collection Activities: (FERC-65, FERC-65a, FERC-65b, FERC-725v) Consolidated Comment Request; Extension | |
| 83 FR 22663 - Notice of Application: UGI Central Penn Gas, Inc. and UGI Utilities, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 22666 - Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 22658 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 22667 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 22691 - Agency Information Collection Request. 30-Day Public Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 22701 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Post Disaster Survivor Preparedness Research | |
| 83 FR 22680 - Filing Dates for the Texas Special Election in the 27th Congressional District | |
| 83 FR 22624 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Annapolis Passenger Ferry Dock Project, Puget Sound, Washington | |
| 83 FR 22720 - Franklin Alternative Strategies Funds, et al. | |
| 83 FR 22730 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use on Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 22728 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use on Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 22717 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Create a New Rule 1081, To Amend Electronic Market Maker Obligations and Quoting Requirements for Electronic ROTs, Which Will Be Defined To Include SQTs, RSQTs, Directed SQTs, Directed RSQTs, Specialists, and Remote Specialists | |
| 83 FR 22726 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Revise the Language of Certain Administrative Rules To Continue To Help Ensure That They Reflect MSRB Practices and Improve Consistency Among the Rules | |
| 83 FR 22722 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Under BZX Rule 14.11(c)(4) Shares of the iShares Long-Term National Muni Bond ETF of iShares Trust | |
| 83 FR 22715 - Proposed Submission of Information Collection for OMB Review; Comment Request; Locating and Paying Participants | |
| 83 FR 22751 - List of Countries Requiring Cooperation With an International Boycott | |
| 83 FR 22738 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Hawaii | |
| 83 FR 22703 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
| 83 FR 22702 - Agency Information Collection Activities; “7 CFR Part 1; 43 CFR Part 45; 50 CFR Part 221; The Alternatives Process in Hydropower Licensing” | |
| 83 FR 22732 - Program for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Pursuant To Rule 17d-2; Notice of Filing and Order Approving and Declaring Effective an Amended Plan for the Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Between the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., Cboe Exchange, Inc., and Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 22738 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the Commonwealth of Kentucky | |
| 83 FR 22595 - Tebuconazole; Pesticide Tolerances | |
| 83 FR 22715 - Information Collection Request Submission for OMB Review | |
| 83 FR 22678 - National Environmental Justice Advisory Council; Notification of Public Teleconference and Public Comment | |
| 83 FR 22754 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Wood Building Products Residual Risk and Technology Review |
Food Safety and Inspection Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
National Nuclear Security Administration
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
Geological Survey
National Park Service
Reclamation Bureau
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
National Institute of Corrections
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Final rule.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is publishing this final rule to amend the compliance date for energy conservation standards for ceiling fan light kits (CFLKs). The energy conservation standards for CFLKs were issued by DOE on January 6, 2016, and compliance with the standards was required on January 7, 2019. The “Ceiling Fan Energy Conservation Harmonization Act,” subsequently deemed the compliance date for DOE's CFLKs standards to be January 21, 2020, and required DOE to amend its regulation to reflect this requirement. DOE is also updating a cross-reference in the regulations that was mistakenly not updated when the ceiling fan energy conservation standards were codified.
This rule is effective May 16, 2018. The compliance date for the standards established for CFLKs is January 21, 2020.
Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1604. Email:
Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington DC 20585-0121. Telephone (202) 586-7796. Email:
Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include CFLKs, the subject of this document. Section 325(ff)(5) of EPCA authorizes DOE to consider amended standards for CFLKs. On January 6, 2016 DOE promulgated an energy conservation standard for CFLKs with a compliance date of 3 years after the date of issuance, or January 7, 2019. Section 325(ff)(5) required that the compliance date of the standards be at least 2 years after the date of issuance, and the 3 year lead time DOE specified in the final standards rule is consistent with other provisions of EPCA that require a 3-year lead time for some products. Section 325(ff)(6) of EPCA also authorizes DOE to consider amended standards for ceiling fans, as a separate product under the statute. DOE promulgated an energy conservation standard for ceiling fans on January 19, 2017. The compliance date for the ceiling fan standards rule is January 21, 2020. Section 325(ff)(6) did not have a similar provision regarding the compliance date for ceiling fan standards; however, as with the CFLK rule, the 3 year lead time DOE specified in the final standards rule is consistent with other provisions of EPCA that require a 3-year lead time for some products.
After DOE's promulgation of final rules establishing energy conservation standards for CFLKs and Ceiling Fans, Congress enacted S. 2030, the “Ceiling Fan Energy Conservation Harmonization Act” (“the Act”), which was signed into law as Public Law 115-161 on April 3, 2018. The Act amended the compliance date for the CFLK standards to establish a single compliance date for the energy conservation standards for both CFLKs and ceiling fans. The Act also required that DOE, not later than 60 days after the date of enactment, make any technical and conforming changes to any regulation, guidance document, or procedure necessary to implement the changed compliance date. This action codifies Congress's revision of the compliance date for CFLKs in DOEs regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(s).
DOE is also updating a cross reference in 10 CFR 430.32(s)(5), changing the reference to paragraph (s)(2) or (3) to paragraph (s)(3) or (4). Paragraph (s)(5) provides requirements for ceiling fan light kits other than those specified in the cross-referenced paragraphs, which were not updated when the new ceiling fan standards were codified as paragraph (s)(2).
In light of the applicable statutory requirement enacted by Congress to deem the compliance date for CFLK standards to be January 21, 2020, the absence of any benefit in providing comment given that the rule incorporates the specific requirement established by Public Law 115-161, DOE finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to not provide prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on the actions outlined in this document to implement Public Law 115-161. DOE similarly finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to not provide prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on the update to the erroneous cross-reference. For these reasons, providing prior notice and an opportunity for public comment would, in this instance, be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. For the same reason, DOE finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effective date for this rule.
This final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under any of the criteria set out in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
On January 30, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” That Order stated the policy of the executive branch is to be prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both
Additionally, on February 24, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.” The Order required the head of each agency designate an agency official as its Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO). Each RRO oversees the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies to ensure that agencies effectively carry out regulatory reforms, consistent with applicable law. Further, E.O. 13777 requires the establishment of a regulatory task force at each agency. The regulatory task force is required to make recommendations to the agency head regarding the repeal, replacement, or modification of existing regulations, consistent with applicable law. At a minimum, each regulatory reform task force must attempt to identify regulations that:
(i) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
(ii) Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
(iii) Impose costs that exceed benefits;
(iv) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
(v) Are inconsistent with the requirements of Information Quality Act, or the guidance issued pursuant to that Act, in particular those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or
(vi) Derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially modified.
DOE concludes that this final rule is consistent with the directives set forth in these executive orders. Specifically, this final rule is a deregulatory action to implement Public Law 115-161, which amended the compliance date for the CFLK standards to establish a single compliance date for the energy conservation standards for both CFLKs and ceiling fans. This action is estimated to result in cost savings. Assuming a 7 percent discount rate, this final rule would yield annualized cost savings of approximately $0.29 million (2016$).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rulemaking imposes no new information or recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, Office of Management and Budget clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501
DOE has determined that this rule is covered under the Categorical Exclusion found in DOE's National Environmental Policy Act regulations at paragraph A.6 of appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021, which applies to rulemakings that are strictly procedural. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999) imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this final rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This final rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
The Department has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this rule would not result in any takings which might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this rulemaking under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. This final rule would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy and, therefore, is not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule prior to its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Small businesses.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE hereby amends chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-09-05, which applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 717-200 airplanes. AD 2016-09-05 required a detailed inspection for distress of the vertical
This AD is effective May 31, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 31, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Muoi Vuong, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5205; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We issued AD 2016-09-05, Amendment 39-18503 (81 FR 26673, May 4, 2016) (“AD 2016-09-05”), for certain The Boeing Company Model 717-200 airplanes. AD 2016-09-05 required a detailed inspection for any distress of the vertical stabilizer leading edge skin, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. It also required, for certain airplanes, repetitive detailed inspections of the front spar cap for any loose or missing fasteners, repetitive eddy current testing high frequency (ETHF) and radiographic testing (RT) inspections of the front spar cap for any crack, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. AD 2016-09-05 resulted from reports of 10 cases of elongated fastener holes in the vertical stabilizer leading edge. We issued AD 2016-09-05 to address cracking in the vertical stabilizer leading edge and front spar cap, which may result in the structure becoming unable to support limit load, and may lead to the loss of the vertical stabilizer.
Since we issued AD 2016-09-05, four cases of elongated fastener holes in the vertical stabilizer leading edge and nine cases of front spar cap damage or cracks were reported. Seven of the nine cases involved small cracks of approximately 0.3 inch in the front spar cap. Two of the nine cases involved a severed front spar cap and front spar web cracking, and one also involved skin cracking. The longest cracks, 4.5 inches in length, were discovered in the left skin of the vertical stabilizer leading edge and the front spar web of a Boeing Model 717-200 airplane during an initial inspection required by AD 2016-09-05. We determined that for airplanes on which an initial inspection has not been done as specified in AD 2016-09-05, a revised compliance time is needed. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-55A0012, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2018. The service information describes procedures for doing detailed inspections of the front spar cap for any loose or missing fasteners, ETHF or RT inspections for distress and for cracking in the vertical stabilizer leading edge and front spar cap at the splice at station Zfs=52.267, and applicable on-condition actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
Although this AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD 2016-09-05, this AD would retain the requirements of AD 2016-09-05, with revised compliance times for airplanes that have not completed the requirements of AD 2016-09-05. The requirements of AD 2016-09-05 are referenced in the service information identified previously, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of this AD.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comment prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because cracks in the vertical stabilizer leading edge and front spar cap could result in the structure becoming unable to support limit load, and may lead to the loss of the vertical stabilizer. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reason(s) stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 106 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
The new requirements of this AD add no additional economic burden.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This Airworthiness Directive (AD)is effective May 31, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2016-09-05, Amendment 39-18503 (81 FR 26673, May 4, 2016) (“AD 2016-09-05”).
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 717-200 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-55A0012, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2018.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55, Stabilizers.
This AD was prompted by multiple reports of the vertical stabilizer leading edge showing signs of fastener distress, multiple cracked or severed front spar caps, and cracks in the left skin of the vertical stabilizer leading edge and in the front spar web, discovered during initial inspections required by AD 2016-09-05. We have determined that a revised compliance time is needed for airplanes on which the initial inspection has not been done as specified in AD 2016-09-05. We are issuing this AD to address cracking in the vertical stabilizer leading edge and front spar cap, which may result in the structure becoming unable to support limit load, and may lead to loss of the vertical stabilizer.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-55A0012, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2018, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-55A0012, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2018.
(1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-55A0012, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2018, uses the phrase “the Revision 1 issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-55A0012, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2018, specifies contacting Boeing, and specifies that action as RC: This AD requires repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for the initial inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if that inspection was performed before June 8, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-09-05), using Boeing MOM-MOM-14-0437-01B(R1), dated July 3, 2014. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-55A0012, dated June 12, 2015. This service information was incorporated by reference in AD 2016-09-05.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2016-09-05 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-55A0012, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2018, that are required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(5) Except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(5)(i) and (j)(5)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact: Muoi Vuong, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5205; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-55A0012, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2018.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce various safety zones within the Captain of the Port New York Zone on the specified dates and times. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels, spectators and participants from hazards associated with fireworks. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the safety zones without permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP).
The regulation for the safety zones described in 33 CFR 165.160 will be enforced on the dates and times listed in the table below.
If you have questions regarding this document, call or email Petty Officer First Class Ronald Sampert U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 718-354-4197, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.160 on the specified dates and times as indicated in Tables 1 and 2 below. This regulation was published in the
Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.160, vessels may not enter the safety zones unless given permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Spectator vessels may transit outside the safety zones but may not anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of other vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.160(a) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to the publication of this document in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notification of final action on petition.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action in announcing its approval of the petition by Kentucky to opt-out of the federal reformulated gasoline (RFG) program and remove the requirement to sell federal RFG for Boone, Campbell, and Kenton counties (the Northern Kentucky Area), which are part of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana maintenance area for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) (Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Area). EPA has determined that this removal of the federal RFG program for the Northern Kentucky Area is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's regulations.
The effective date for removal of the Northern Kentucky Area from the federal RFG program is July 1, 2018.
David Dickinson, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9256; email address:
Entities potentially affected by this final action are fuel producers and distributors who do business in the Northern Kentucky Area.
The
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0114. All documents in the docket are listed on the
The 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) amendments established specific requirements for the RFG program to reduce ozone levels in certain areas in the country experiencing ground-level ozone or smog problems by reducing vehicle emissions of compounds that form ozone, specifically volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The 1990 CAA amendments, specifically CAA section 211(k)(5), directed EPA to issue regulations that specify how gasoline can be “reformulated” so as to result in significant reductions in vehicle emissions of ozone-forming and toxic air pollutants relative to the 1990 baseline fuel, and to require the use of such reformulated gasoline in certain “covered areas.” The CAA defined certain nonattainment areas as “covered areas” which are required to use reformulated gasoline (RFG) and provided other areas with an ability to “opt-in” to the RFG program. CAA section 211(k)(6) provides an opportunity for an area classified as a Marginal, Moderate, Serious, or Severe ozone nonattainment area, or which is in the ozone transport region established by CAA section 184(a), to “opt-in” to the RFG program upon application by the governor of the state (or his authorized representative) and subsequent action by EPA.
As in other RFG covered areas, RFG opt-in areas are subject to the prohibition in CAA section 211(k)(5) on the sale or dispensing by any person of conventional (non-RFG) gasoline to ultimate consumers in the covered area. The prohibition also includes the sale or dispensing by any refiner, blender, importer, or marketer of conventional gasoline for resale in any covered areas, without segregating the conventional gasoline from RFG and clearly marking conventional gasoline as not for sale to ultimate consumers in a covered area. EPA first published regulations for the RFG program on February 16, 1994 (59 FR 7716).
Kentucky voluntarily opted Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties into the RFG program in 1995. Kentucky also opted its portion of the Louisville ozone area (Jefferson County and parts of Bullitt and Oldham Counties) into the RFG program; however, today's action does not affect the use of RFG in the Louisville ozone area. A current listing of the RFG covered areas and a summary of RFG requirements can be found on EPA's website at:
The RFG regulations (40 CFR 80.72—Procedures for opting out of the covered areas) provide the process and criteria for a reasonable transition out of the RFG program if a state decides to opt-out.
EPA determined in the RFG “Opt-out Rule” that it would not be necessary to conduct a separate rulemaking for each future opt-out request. (
On April 18, 2017, Kentucky submitted a petition to the EPA Administrator requesting to opt-out from the RFG program for Boone, Campbell and Kenton counties (the Northern Kentucky Area).
As provided by the RFG Opt-out Rule and the opt-out regulations, EPA will publish a final rule at a later date to remove the three counties in the Northern Kentucky Area from the list of RFG covered areas in 40 CFR 80.70 after the effective date of the opt-out. EPA believes that it is prudent to complete this ministerial exercise to revise the list of covered areas in the Code of Federal Regulations after the effective date of the opt-out.
EPA is approving Kentucky's petition because it contained the information required by 40 CFR 80.72, including that Kentucky revised the approved maintenance plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Northern Kentucky Area to remove the emissions reductions associated with RFG. EPA is also determining the opt-out effective date by applying the criteria in 40 CFR 80.72(c)(7). As discussed in Section II.A. of this document, the opt-out regulations require that if a state included RFG as a control measure in an approved SIP, the state must revise the SIP, reflecting the removal of RFG as a control measure before an opt-out can be effective and the opt-out cannot be effective less than 90 days after the effective date of the approval of the SIP revision. EPA published a final approval of Kentucky's maintenance plan revision and noninterference demonstration on April 2, 2018 (83 FR 13872). The final approval was effective upon publication.
In summary, EPA is today notifying the public that it has applied its regulatory criteria to approve the petition by Kentucky to opt-out of the RFG program for the Northern Kentucky Area of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN ozone maintenance area and is thereby removing the prohibition on the sale of conventional gasoline in that area as of July 1, 2018. (
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of tebuconazole in or on ginseng, fresh at 0.15 parts per million (ppm) and ginseng, dried at 0.40 ppm. Bayer CropScience LP, requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective May 16, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before July 16, 2018, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0032, is available at
Michael Goodis, Director, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0032 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before July 16, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified
•
•
•
In the
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for tebuconazole including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with tebuconazole follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
The toxicological profile remains unchanged from the discussion contained in the final rule published in the
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by tebuconazole as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for tebuconazole used for human risk assessment can be found in the preamble to the final rule published in the
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if:
• Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
• Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
• Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area.
In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.
For the acute assessment, the Agency estimated the PCT for existing uses as follows: Almonds 15%; apples 2.5%; apricots 20%; asparagus 30%; barley 2.5%; beans green 2.5%; cantaloupes 10%; cherries 45%; corn 2.5%; cotton 2.5%; cucumbers 2.5%; dry beans/peas 5%; garlic 95%; grapes 40%; nectarines 30%; oats 2.5%; onions 5%; peaches 25%; peanuts 65%; pears 5%; pecans 25%; plums/prunes 5%; soybeans 2.5%; squash 5%; sweet corn 5%; and wheat 25%.
For the chronic assessment, the Agency estimated the PCT for existing uses as follows: Almonds 5%; apples 2.5%; apricots 10%; asparagus 5%; barley 2.5%; beans green 1%; cantaloupes 2.5%; cherries 25%; corn 1%; cotton 1%; cucumbers 1%; dry beans/peas 2.5%; garlic 65%; grapes 25%; nectarines 20%; oats 2.5%; onions 5%; peaches 10%; peanuts 45%; pears 5%; pecans 10%; pistachios 5%; plums/prunes 2.5%; pumpkins 2.5%; soybeans 1%; squash 2.5%; sweet corn 2.5%; walnuts 2.5%; watermelons 15%; and wheat 5%.
The following estimated percent import estimates for the import oranges were used:
In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 10 years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis and a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT is less than 2.5% or 1%. In those cases, EPA uses 2.5% or 1%, respectively, as the average PCT value. The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported within the recent 10 years of available public and private market survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%, except in those situations in which the maximum PCT is less than 2.5%, in which case, the Agency uses 2.5% as the maximum PCT.
The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of food to which tebuconazole may be applied in a particular area.
2.
Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of tebuconazole for acute exposures are estimated to be 87.7 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 1.56 ppb for ground water and for chronic exposures are estimated to be 68.8 ppb for surface water and 1.56 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were previously entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, a distribution of 30-year daily surface water concentration was estimated for the EDWCs of tebuconazole. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 68.8 ppb was previously used to assess the
3.
EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: For residential handlers, exposure is expected to be short-term. Intermediate-term exposures are not likely because of the intermittent nature of applications by homeowners. For post-application exposures, the Agency assessed residential dermal and incidental oral post-application exposure for adults and children golfing, working in gardens, and performing physical activities on pressure-treated wood after application of tebuconazole may receive exposure to tebuconazole residues. Post-application exposure is expected to be short-term in duration. For assessment of both handler and post-application exposures, dermal and inhalation exposures were combined since the same endpoint and point of departure (POD) is used for both routes of exposure.
Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at
Because no new residential uses are being requested at this time, an updated residential exposure assessment would not normally be required. Each of the existing residential use patterns had been previously assessed and the resulting exposures and risk estimates did not exceed the agency's LOC. Since those assessments were conducted, however, a turf transferrable residue (TTR) study required by the Agency in 2013 was submitted to support a reevaluation of the aggregate exposures from the registered use on golf course turf. In addition, the agency updated the residential standard operating procedures and body weights to be used in all human health assessments. Therefore, the existing residential use patterns were reassessed using the updated procedures and data, since the residential exposures can impact the aggregate assessment for tebuconazole. The TTR study is reviewed in a separate HED memorandum available in the docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0032.
4.
Tebuconazole is a member of the conazole class of fungicides containing the 1,2,4-triazole moiety. Although conazoles act similarly in plants (fungi) by inhibiting ergosterol biosynthesis, there is not necessarily a relationship between their pesticidal activity and their mechanism of toxicity in mammals. Structural similarities do not constitute a common mechanism of toxicity. Evidence is needed to establish that the chemicals operate by the same, or essentially the same, sequence of major biochemical events. In conazoles, however, a variable pattern of toxicological responses is found; some are hepatotoxic and hepatocarcinogenic in mice. Some induce thyroid tumors in rats. Some induce developmental, reproductive, and neurological effects in rodents. Furthermore, the conazoles produce a diverse range of biochemical events including altered cholesterol levels, stress responses, and altered DNA methylation. It is not clearly understood whether these biochemical events are directly connected to their toxicological outcomes. Thus, there is currently no conclusive data to indicate that conazoles share common mechanisms of toxicity, and EPA is not following a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity for the conazoles. For information regarding EPA's procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism of toxicity, see EPA's website at
Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to tebuconazole and any other substances. Although the conazoles produce 1,2,4 triazole and its acid-conjugated metabolites (triazolylalanine and triazolylacetic acid), 1,2,4 triazole and its acid-conjugated metabolites do not contribute to the toxicity of the parent conazoles. The Agency has assessed the aggregate risks from the 1,2,4 triazole and its acid-conjugated metabolites (triazolylalanine and triazolylacetic acid) separately. Tebuconazole does not appear to produce any other toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that tebuconazole has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for tebuconazole is complete.
ii. Tebuconazole demonstrated neurotoxicity in the acute neurotoxicity study in rats; the lowest observable adverse effect level (LOAEL) of 100 mg/kg/day was based on increased motor activity in male and female rats and decreased footsplay in female rats. Although the subchronic neurotoxicity study was unacceptable since there was inadequate dosing, a new subchronic neurotoxicity study is not needed to evaluate levels at which subchronic neurotoxicity might occur; neurotoxicity was seen in other studies in the database at considerably lower doses than those tested in the subchronic neurotoxicity study. Malformations indicative of nervous system development disruption were seen in developmental toxicity studies in mice, rats, and rabbits. Neurotoxicity was also seen in the rat developmental neurotoxicity study as decreases in body weights, decreases in absolute brain weights, changes in brain morphometric parameters, and decreases in motor activity in offspring at the LOAEL of 8.8 mg/kg/day; a no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL) could not be established. The LOAEL (8.8 mg/kg/day) was employed as the point of departure (POD) for assessing risk for all exposure scenarios, and an FQPA SF of 3X has been retained as an uncertainty factor for use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL (UFL). To determine whether the UFL is protective of any potential neurotoxicity, a Benchmark Dose (BMD) analysis of the datasets relevant to the adverse offspring effects (decreased body weight and brain weight) seen at the LOAEL in the developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) study was conducted. All of the BMDLs (benchmark dose lower limit) modeled successfully on statistically significant effects were 1-2X lower than the LOAEL. Therefore, an extrapolated NOAEL is not likely to be 10X lower than the LOAEL and that use of an UFL of 3X would not underestimate risk. Using an FQPA SF of 3X in risk assessment results in a NOAEL of 2.9 mg/kg/day (8.8 mg/kg/day ÷ 3X = 2.9 mg/kg/day), which is further supported by other studies in the tebuconazole toxicity database, with the lowest NOAELs being 3 and 2.9 mg/kg/day, from a developmental toxicity study in mice and a chronic toxicity study in dogs, respectively (respective LOAELs 10 and 4.5 mg/kg/day).
iii. There were increases in qualitative susceptibility in the prenatal developmental studies in rats, mice, and rabbits and in quantitative susceptibility in mice and developmental neurotoxicity in rats. However, the toxicity endpoint observed in developmental neurotoxicity study in rats was employed to establish the point of departure (POD) for risk assessment for all exposure scenarios. This toxicity endpoint was the most sensitive one, and the resulting POD was protective of all adverse effects found in the tebuconazole toxicity database. Therefore, the degree of concern for residual uncertainties for prenatal and/or postnatal toxicity was low.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. EPA utilized a tiered approach in estimating exposure to tebuconazole. While some refinements were incorporated into dietary and residential exposure calculations, EPA is confident that the aggregate risk from exposure to tebuconazole in food, water and residential pathways will not be underestimated. The acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments incorporated somewhat refined estimates of residues in food commodities from reliable field trial data reflecting maximum use conditions, recent monitoring data from USDA's Pesticide Data Program (PDP), and relevant market survey data on the percentage of crops treated. Estimated concentrations of tebuconazole in drinking water were incorporated into the chronic dietary analysis as the upper bound point estimate and into the probabilistic acute dietary analysis as a distribution. For the residential exposure pathways (ornamentals, golf course turf, and treated wood products), potential exposure resulting from tebuconazole outdoor uses in the residential setting was assessed using screening-level inputs that assumes an adult or child will come in contact with turf and other surfaces immediately after application.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Adequate enforcement methodology (Gas Chromatography/Nitrogen Phosphorus Detector (GC/NPD) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.
The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has established MRLs for tebuconazole in or on ginseng and ginseng, dried at 0.15 ppm and 0.40 ppm, respectively. These MRLs are the same as the tolerances established for tebuconazole in the United States.
For dried ginseng, the Agency is revising the commodity definition for the requested tolerance to reflect the correct commodity vocabulary currently used by the Agency. Specifically,
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of tebuconazole, α-[2-(4-Chlorophenyl)ethyl]-α-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol, in or on ginseng, dried at 0.40 ppm and ginseng, fresh at 0.15 ppm.
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10,
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements an accountability measure (AM) for commercial king mackerel in the northern zone of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) exclusive economic zone (EEZ) through this temporary rule. NMFS has determined that the commercial quota for king mackerel in the northern zone of the Gulf EEZ will be reached by May 15, 2018. Therefore, NMFS closes the northern zone of the Gulf EEZ to commercial king mackerel fishing on May 15, 2018. This closure is necessary to protect the Gulf king mackerel resource.
The closure is effective at 12:01 a.m., local time, May 15, 2018, until 12:01 a.m., local time, on October 1, 2018.
Kelli O'Donnell, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish includes king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia, and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. All weights for Gulf king mackerel below apply as either round or gutted weight.
On April 11, 2017, NMFS published a final rule to implement Amendment 26 to the FMP in the
The Gulf king mackerel northern zone is located in the EEZ between a line at 87°31.6′ W long., which is a line extending due south of the state boundary of Alabama and Florida, and a line at 26°19.48′ N lat., which is a line extending west from the boundary of Lee and Collier Counties in southwest Florida.
Regulations at 50 CFR 622.388(a)(1)(i) require NMFS to close the commercial sector for Gulf king mackerel in the northern zone when the commercial quota is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined the commercial quota of 511,200 lb (231,876 kg) for Gulf king mackerel in the northern zone will be reached by May 15, 2018. Accordingly, the northern zone is closed to commercial fishing for Gulf king mackerel effective from 12:01 a.m., local time, on May 15, 2018, through September 30, 2018, the end of the current fishing year.
During the closure, a person on board a vessel that has been issued a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for coastal migratory pelagic fish may continue to retain the king mackerel in the northern zone under the recreational bag and possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.382(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2), as long as the recreational sector for Gulf king mackerel in the northern zone is open (50 CFR 622.384(e)(1)).
Also during the closure, king mackerel from the closed zone, including those harvested under the bag and possession limits, may not be purchased or sold. This prohibition does not apply to king mackerel from the closed zone that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to the closure and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor (50 CFR 622.384(e)(2)).
The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Gulf king mackerel and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.384(e) and 622.388(a)(1)(i), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA) finds good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule implementing the commercial quota and the associated AM has already been subject to notice and public comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Additionally, allowing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because of the need to implement immediately this action to protect the king mackerel stock, because the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and could potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial quota.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure of Angling category Gulf of Mexico trophy fishery.
NMFS closes the Gulf of Mexico Angling category fishery for large medium and giant (“trophy” (
Effective 11:30 p.m., local time, May 13, 2018, through December 31, 2018.
Sarah McLaughlin or Brad McHale, 978-281-9260.
Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971
NMFS is required, under § 635.28(a)(1), to file a closure notice with the Office of the Federal Register for publication when a BFT quota is reached or is projected to be reached. On and after the effective date and time of such notification, for the remainder of the fishing year or for a specified period as indicated in the notification, retaining, possessing, or landing BFT under that quota category is prohibited until the opening of the subsequent quota period or until such date as specified in the notice.
The 2018 BFT fishing year, which is managed on a calendar-year basis and subject to an annual calendar-year quota, began January 1, 2018. The Angling category season opened January 1, 2018, and continues through December 31, 2018. The currently codified Angling category quota is 195.2 metric tons (mt), of which 4.5 mt is allocated for the harvest of large medium and giant (trophy) BFT by vessels fishing under the Angling category quota, with 1.5 mt allocated for each of the following areas: North of 39°18′ N lat. (off Great Egg Inlet, NJ); south of 39°18′ N lat. and outside the Gulf of Mexico (the “southern area”); and in the Gulf of Mexico. Trophy BFT measure 73 inches (185 cm) curved fork length or greater.
Based on reported landings from the NMFS Automated Catch Reporting System, NMFS has determined that the codified Angling category Gulf of Mexico trophy BFT subquota has been reached and exceeded and that a closure of the Gulf of Mexico trophy BFT fishery is warranted. Therefore, retaining, possessing, or landing large medium or giant BFT in the Gulf of Mexico by persons aboard vessels permitted in the HMS Angling category and the HMS Charter/Headboat category (when fishing recreationally) must cease at 11:30 p.m. local time on May 13, 2018. This closure will remain effective through December 31, 2018. This action is intended to prevent further overharvest of the Angling category Gulf of Mexico trophy BFT subquota, and is taken consistent with the regulations at § 635.28(a)(1).
If needed, subsequent Angling category adjustments will be published in the
HMS Charter/Headboat and Angling category vessel owners are required to report the catch of all BFT retained or discarded dead, within 24 hours of the landing(s) or end of each trip, by accessing
The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action for the following reasons:
The regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments provide for inseason retention limit adjustments and fishery closures to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. The closure of the Gulf of Mexico Angling category trophy fishery is necessary to prevent any further overharvest of the Gulf of Mexico trophy fishery subquota. NMFS provides notification of closures by publishing the notice in the
These fisheries are currently underway and delaying this action would be contrary to the public interest as it could result in excessive trophy BFT landings that may result in future potential quota reductions for the Angling category, depending on the magnitude of a potential Angling category overharvest. NMFS must close the Gulf of Mexico trophy BFT fishery before additional landings of these sizes of BFT occur. Therefore, the AA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment. For all of the above reasons, there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.
This action is being taken under 50 CFR 635.28(a)(1), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 971
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to amend the Federal meat inspection regulations by removing the provision requiring the cleaning of hog carcasses before any incision is made preceding evisceration. This provision, although focusing on the presentation of carcass dressing defects, impedes the adoption of more efficient, effective procedures under other regulations to ensure that carcasses and parts are free of contamination. Also, the provision is no longer necessary because other regulations require carcass cleaning, the maintenance of sanitary conditions, and the prevention of hazards reasonably likely to occur in the slaughter process.
Comments must be received by July 16, 2018.
FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on FSIS-2018-0005. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Roberta Wagner, Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development, FSIS; Telephone: (202) 205-0495.
Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601-695), FSIS carries out an inspection program to ensure that carcasses, parts, and products of amenable species of livestock are wholesome, not adulterated, and properly marked, labeled and packaged. Among other provisions of the Act is a requirement for post-mortem inspection of livestock carcasses, including swine carcasses (21 U.S.C. 604). This inspection must be completed before the carcasses or the meat or meat food products derived from them are moved to further processing (21 U.S.C. 605) and preparation for commerce (also under inspection) (21 U.S.C. 606(a)).
Under the Act, the Agency may prescribe rules and regulations of sanitation under which establishments must be maintained (21 U.S.C. 608). More generally, the Agency may issue rules and regulations necessary for the efficient execution of the Act's provisions (21 U.S.C. 621).
Accordingly, FSIS and its predecessors have issued regulations governing inspection. The regulations include post-mortem inspection requirements, criteria for determining whether or not meat or meat food products are adulterated, and requirements for inspected establishments to develop and maintain Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) plans and Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (Sanitation SOPs).
Among the post-mortem inspection regulations is one titled “Cleaning of hog carcasses before incising” (9 CFR 310.11). This regulation states, “All hair, scurf, and dirt, including all hoofs and claws, shall be removed from hog carcasses and the carcasses thoroughly washed and cleaned, before any incision is made for inspection or evisceration.” The carcass cleaning that the regulation is referring to typically begins in an official slaughter establishment after stunning, bleeding, and scalding, and continues after gambrelling
Another post-mortem-inspection regulation, 9 CFR 310.18, on “Contamination of carcasses, organs, or other parts,” addresses the prevention and removal of contamination from carcasses (before or after incision), organs, and other parts. Under this regulation, any contamination remaining post-incision or post-evisceration is removed.
Regulations on Sanitation SOPs (9 CFR 304.3, 416.12-17) require establishments to have written procedures to ensure sanitary operating conditions that will prevent contamination and adulteration of products. The HACCP regulations (9 CFR 304.3, and 417, particularly 9 CFR 417.2, and 417.4) require establishments to have HACCP plans to prevent or reduce to acceptable levels any hazards reasonably likely to occur. These include any contamination hazards that are not already minimized through the implementation of Sanitation SOPs or other prerequisite programs. FSIS and members of the regulated industry have found that the regulation on cleaning hog carcasses before incising, 9 CFR 310.11, may impede the application of alternative, more efficient, procedures for removing hair, scurf, and dirt
Because the current regulation is prescriptive and requires dehairing
These more efficient procedures also ensure that carcasses will be free of contamination when moved within an establishment to, or shipped in commerce for, further processing. The alternative procedures can be incorporated in a prerequisite program aimed at preventing contamination. When executed and documented, the program can support an establishment's hazard analysis (as per 9 CFR 417.5(a)(1)) and HACCP plan. At times, the Agency has, under an exemption regulation, at 9 CFR 303.1(h), granted waivers from the requirements of 9 CFR 310.11 to permit the use of the alternative procedures.
For example, carcass defects and blemishes too small to be detected during slaughter can be removed during off-line inspection or during further processing. So, some establishments are using alternative procedures for removing, after carcass dressing, hairs that are not readily visible. Such defects may be regarded as finished carcass defects and not as contamination or sanitary dressing defects. Singed eyelashes remaining on the carcass or isolated, individual, hairs on the head or face of the ham may be found after the first incision. Such defects may be removed effectively when pulling the snout and when “facing” (trimming the excess fat along the inside surfaces of) hams in the cutting room, where carcasses are broken down in a sanitary manner into standard wholesale or retail cuts. Remaining hoofs and claws (
Establishments using the alternatives are listed on the FSIS website at:
By relying on the authority of 9 CFR 310.18 and the Sanitation SOP and HACCP regulations, establishments have the flexibility to implement these or other procedures to remove any defects during the stages of slaughter and further processing that follow evisceration. They can make their operations more efficient and effective without compromising food safety. Therefore, these other regulations, and establishment compliance therewith, make 9 CFR 310.11 unnecessary.
FSIS is therefore proposing to remove 9 CFR 310.11 from the regulations.
On February 1, 2018, FSIS proposed a new regulation to modernize swine inspection (83 FR 4780). Among other things, in this rule, FSIS is proposing to require that all official swine slaughter establishments develop, implement, and maintain in their HACCP systems written procedures to prevent the contamination of carcasses and parts by enteric pathogens, fecal material, ingesta, and milk throughout the entire slaughter and dressing operation. These procedures must include sampling and analysis for microbial organisms to monitor process control for enteric pathogens, as well as written procedures to prevent visible fecal material, ingesta, and milk contamination. In addition, FSIS is proposing to require that all official swine slaughter establishments develop, implement, and maintain in their HACCP systems written procedures to prevent contamination of the pre-operational environment by enteric pathogens. Therefore, in the modernization proposed rule, FSIS is proposing additional requirements that, if finalized, will further prevent contamination of swine carcasses. If finalized, this rule would provide more support for eliminating section 310.11, as is proposed above.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety benefits, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order (E.O.) 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule has been designated as a “non-significant” regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866.
This proposed rule is expected to reduce swine slaughter labor costs by approximately $11.81 million annually. These savings are due to industry's practice of dedicating labor pre-incision, solely to comply with 310.11. Under the proposed rule, this labor would no longer be needed because the work can be accomplished by existing labor located post-incision. FSIS's labor cost savings estimate assumes that the labor affected by the proposed rule is equivalent to that in the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS's) slaughtering and meat-packing occupational category, for which the industry annual wage is $27,140.
The number of positions affected at each establishment depends on the establishment's size, slaughter volume, number of lines and shifts it operates, and days of operation. Large
According to data from the Agency's electronic Public Health Inspection System (PHIS), 479 very small establishments, 54 small low-volume establishments, 51 small high-volume establishments, and 23
The proposed rule has no expected costs associated with it.
The FSIS Acting Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601). The expected labor cost reductions associated with the proposed rule are not likely to be large enough to significantly impact an entity. Further, the proposed rule does not have any cost increases.
Consistent with E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017), FSIS has estimated that this proposed rule would yield cost savings. Therefore, if finalized as proposed, this rule is expected to be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.
No new paperwork requirements are associated with this proposed rule.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted; (2) No retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) Administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
FSIS and USDA are committed to achieving the purposes of the E-Government Act (44 U.S.C. 3601,
FSIS will announce this proposal on-line through the FSIS web page located at:
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, shall exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination, any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Animal diseases, Meat inspection.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, FSIS is proposing to amend 9 CFR part 310 as follows:
21 U.S.C. 601-695; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), Interior.
Proposed rule; correction.
We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement published a document in the
Mr. Ben Owens, Chief, Pittsburgh Field Division, Telephone: (412) 937-2827. Email:
In the proposed rule of May 8, 2018, in FR Doc. 2018-09767, on page 20774 in the third column, correct the
In the proposed rule of May 8, 2018, in FR Doc. 2018-09767, on page 20775 in the first column, correct the “Public Hearing” caption to read:
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), Interior.
Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public hearing on proposed amendment.
We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the Pennsylvania Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation (AMLR) Plan (hereinafter, the Plan) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Through this proposed amendment, Pennsylvania would modify its AMLR Plan by adding Reclamation Plan Amendment No. 3, to allow the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to administer a State Emergency Program under Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. The plan covers coordination of emergency reclamation work between the Commonwealth and the OSMRE as well as procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and other Commonwealth procedures.
This document gives the locations and times where the Pennsylvania AMLR Plan documents and this proposed amendment to that Plan are available for your inspection, establishes the comment period during which you may submit written comments on the amendment, and describes the procedures we will follow for the public hearing, if one is requested.
We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (e.s.t.), June 15, 2018. If requested, we will hold a public hearing about the amendment on June 11, 2018. We will accept
You may submit comments, identified by SATS No. PA-165-FOR; Docket ID: OSM-2016-0013 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Ben Owens, Chief, Pittsburgh Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 3 Parkway Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15220, Telephone: (412) 937-2827, Email:
Mr. Ben Owens, Chief, Pittsburgh Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 3 Parkway Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15220, Telephone: (412) 937-2827, Email:
The AMLR program was established by Title IV of SMCRA in response to concerns over threats to the health and safety of the public and environmental damage caused by coal mining activities conducted before the enactment of the Act. The program is funded by a reclamation fee collected on each active coal mine to finance the reclamation of abandoned coal mines and for other authorized activities. Section 405 of the Act allows States and Tribes to assume exclusive responsibility for reclamation activity within the State or on Tribal lands if they develop and submit to the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) for approval, a program for the reclamation of abandoned coal mines. The Secretary approved the Pennsylvania AMLR Plan, effective July 31, 1982. You can find background information on the Plan, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the approval of the Plan in the July 30 1982,
By letter dated November 22, 2016 (Administrative Record No. PA 898.00), Pennsylvania sent us an amendment to its AMLR Plan under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
Pennsylvania is requesting to modify the Commonwealth's Plan to allow the PADEP to administer a State Emergency Program under Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C.A. §§ 1201-1328). The coordination of emergency reclamation work between the Commonwealth and the OSMRE will be handled by the PADEP. The PADEP intends to follow Chapter 4-120 of OSMRE's Federal Assistance Manual (FAM) entitled, “State Emergency AML Reclamation Program.” Coordination with other agencies for environmental clearance will be on a project specific basis as outlined in the “OSMRE Handbook on Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act” and other Commonwealth procedures.
OSMRE notes that before September 30, 2010, OSMRE conducted emergency AML reclamation in Pennsylvania. Effective October 1, 2010, OSMRE transitioned emergency AML reclamation responsibilities to PADEP leading to the submittal of the proposed amendment. [Administrative Record Number PA 898.05]. The following are the proposed changes contained in Pennsylvania's submission.
A. Attached to the proposed program amendment are an official designation by the Governor of Pennsylvania in 1978 that the Department of Environmental Resources is the State Agency authorized to implement and administer the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program, and a 2016 memorandum from the PADEP's Office of Chief Counsel specifying PADEP's statutory authority to establish and administer an Emergency Program as part of its State AMLR Plan. The Office of Chief Counsel's memorandum notes that “Section 16 of the Land and Water Conservation and Reclamation Act (32 P.S. § 5116 (Allotment of moneys)) and the Mine Fire and Subsidence Remedial Project Indemnification Law (52 P.S. 30.201-30.206) provide PADEP the authority to conduct activities consistent with an Emergency Reclamation Program.”
The proposed program amendment includes policies and procedures the Commonwealth will follow in conducting the Emergency Response Program. Emergency response reclamation activities involve entering upon any land where eligible abandoned coal mine related emergencies exist and doing all things necessary or expedient to protect the public health, safety or general welfare from the adverse effects of legacy coal mining practices. PADEP will handle the coordination of emergency reclamation work between the State and OSMRE as outlined in PFO's OSMRE Emergency Response protocol and using the procedures set out in OSMRE's FAM. PADEP will conduct all investigations and eligibility findings required by Title IV of SMCRA. When emergency conditions warrant an immediate response, the PADEP will initiate appropriate action upon receipt of an approval, a “Limited Emergency Response,” or a verbal approval from OSMRE. A Limited Emergency Response is described in OSMRE's Federal Assistance Manual. The objective of the Limited Emergency Response is to stabilize the emergency aspects of the problem by eliminating the immediate danger to public health, safety, and welfare. Any remaining reclamation should then be accomplished as part of a regular non-emergency AML project.
B. PADEP may enter on any land where an emergency exists or on land adjacent thereto for access, to prevent the adverse impacts of the emergency in order to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. While PADEP will make all reasonable efforts to notify the landowners and receive consent for right of entry, the State will obtain access in accordance with 30 CFR 877.14 when property owners will not grant permission. All emergency project development, design, realty, construction, and administration will generally be done by PADEP, following the procedures used in the State's Non-Emergency Title IV Program.
On October 14, 2016, PADEP posted public notice that an opportunity
C. Under the proposed amendment, PADEP may undertake an emergency project in any of the eligible coalfields found in Pennsylvania and these projects may involve any eligible legacy coal mining related problems. A site is eligible for AML funding if it was mined for coal or was affected by such mining, was abandoned or left in an inadequate reclamation status prior to August 3, 1977, the date of enactment of SMCRA, and if it is determined that there is no continuing reclamation responsibility under State or other Federal laws. See 30 U.S.C. 1234. A site that was mined after August 3, 1977, may be eligible for AML funding if it meets the criteria in section 402(g)(4)(B)(i) or (ii). See 30 U.S.C. 1232(g)(4)(B)(i) or (ii).
D. The proposed program amendment satisfies the objectives of the abandoned mine land program as set out in Section 403 of SMCRA, FAM Chapter 4, OSMRE Directive AML-4 and the NEPA handbook, which are available at
The full text of the program amendment is available for you to read at the locations listed above under
Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the Pennsylvania's State Program.
If you submit written or electronic comments on the proposed rule during the 30-day comment period, they should be specific, confined to issues pertinent to the proposed regulations, and explain the reason for any recommended change(s). We appreciate any and all comments, but those most useful and likely to influence decisions on the final regulations will be those that either involve personal experience or include citations to and analyses of SMCRA, its legislative history, its implementing regulations, case law, other pertinent State or Federal laws or regulations, technical literature, or other relevant publications.
We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see
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.
If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under
To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at the public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak, and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard.
If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under
Pursuant to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidance dated October 12, 1993, the approval of state program amendments is exempted from OMB review under Executive Order 12866.
When a State submits a plan amendment to OSMRE for review and that amendment changes the objectives, scope or major policies followed, our regulations at 30 CFR 884.14 and 884.15 require us either to hold a public hearing on a plan amendment or make a finding that the State provided adequate notice and opportunity for public comment. Pennsylvania has elected to have OSMRE publish a notice in the
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.
The U.S. Copyright Office is further extending the deadline for the submission of written comments in
The comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking, published on April 16, 2018 at 83 FR 16269, is extended by an additional forty-five days. Comments must be made in writing and must be received in the U.S. Copyright Office no later than July 16, 2018.
For reasons of government efficiency, the Copyright Office is using the
Cindy P. Abramson, Assistant General Counsel, by email at
On April 16, 2018, the U.S. Copyright Office issued a proposed rulemaking making revisions to its regulations to finalize a 2010 interim rule regarding mandatory deposit of electronic-only works, and to make electronic-only books published in the United States subject to the mandatory deposit requirements if they are affirmatively demanded by the Office.
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing its intention to revise the approved information collection regarding voluntary recalls from commerce of meat, poultry, and egg products. FSIS has reduced the burden estimate by 2,000 hours due to updated information on recall effectiveness checks. The approval for this information collection will expire on September 30, 2018.
Submit comments on or before July 16, 2018.
FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this
•
•
•
Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700; (202) 720-5627.
FSIS is requesting a revision to the approved information collection addressing paperwork requirements regarding the Agency's requests that establishments voluntarily recall from commerce of meat, poultry, and egg products. FSIS has reduced the burden estimate by 2,000 hours due to updated information on recall effectiveness checks. The approval for this information collection will expire on September 30, 2018.
FSIS requests that a firm that has produced or imported meat, poultry, or egg product that is adulterated or misbranded and has distributed it in commerce recall the product in question. When there is a recall, FSIS asks that the recalling firm (
When a firm voluntarily recalls a product, FSIS conducts recall effectiveness checks. In conducting recall effectiveness checks, if the recall is to the retail or consumer level, the Agency contacts the distributors and actual retail consignees to ensure that they were notified of the recall, to verify the amount of product they received, and to confirm that they are removing the product from commerce and returning it to the recalling firm or otherwise disposing of the product.
FSIS has made the following estimates based upon an information collection assessment.
Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700; (202) 720-5627.
Responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations,
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Done at Washington, DC.
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing its intention to renew the approved information collection regarding requirements for official establishments to notify FSIS of adulterated or misbranded product, prepare and maintain written recall procedures, and document certain HACCP plan reassessments. The approval for this information collection will expire on September 30, 2018. FSIS is making no changes to the approved collection. The public may comment on either the entire information collection or on one of its three parts.
Submit comments on or before July 16, 2018.
FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this
•
•
•
Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700; (202) 720-5627.
The regulations at 9 CFR 418.2, 418.3 and 417.4(a)(3) require establishments to notify FSIS of adulterated or misbranded product, prepare and maintain written recall procedures, and document certain HACCP plan reassessments. Accordingly, FSIS requires three information collection activities under these regulations. First, FSIS requires that official establishments notify the appropriate District Office that an adulterated or misbranded product received by or originating from the establishment has entered commerce, if the establishment believes or has reason to believe that this has happened. Second, FSIS requires that establishments prepare and maintain written procedures for the recall of meat and poultry products produced and shipped by the establishment for use should it become necessary for the establishment to remove product from commerce. These written recall procedures have to specify how the establishment will decide whether to conduct a product recall, and how the establishment will effect the recall should it decide that one is necessary. Finally, FSIS requires that establishments document each reassessment of the establishment's HACCP plans. FSIS requires establishments to reassess their HACCP plans annually and whenever any changes occur that could affect the hazard analysis or alter the HACCP plan. For annual reassessments, if the establishment determines that no changes are necessary, documentation of this determination is not necessary.
FSIS is requesting renewal of the approved information collection addressing paperwork and recordkeeping requirements for these three activities. The approval for this information collection will expire on September 30, 2018. FSIS is making no changes to the approved collection. The public may comment on either the entire information collection or on one of its three parts. FSIS has made the following estimates based upon an information collection assessment.
Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700; (202) 720-5627.
Responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations,
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Done at Washington, DC.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable May 7, 2018.
Andrew Medley or Whitley Herndon at (202) 482-4987 or (202) 482-6274, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
On April 17, 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received an antidumping duty (AD) Petition concerning imports of certain quartz surface products (quartz surface products) from the People's Republic of China (China), filed in proper form on behalf of Cambria Company LLC (the petitioner).
On April 20, 26, and 30, 2018, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petition.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of quartz surface products from China are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing quartz surface products in the United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegation.
Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigation that the petitioner is requesting.
Because China is a non-market economy (NME) country, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2017, through March 31, 2018.
The products covered by this investigation are quartz surface products from China. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
During our review of the Petition, Commerce issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).
Commerce requests that any factual information parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All such submissions must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
Commerce is providing interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of quartz surface products to be reported in response to Commerce's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant factors of production accurately, as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaire, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 29, 2018, which is the next business day after 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice.
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation.
In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the Appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2017 and compared this to the estimated total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.
In a letter dated May 1, 2018, MSI, a U.S. importer, submitted comments on industry support and requested that Commerce poll the industry to determine industry support.
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, the General Issues Supplement, Industry Support Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition.
Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigation that it is requesting that Commerce initiate.
The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression or suppression; lost sales and lost revenues; negative effects on the existing product development and production efforts of the domestic industry; and negative impact on the domestic industry's financial and operating indicators, such as sales, profits, return on investment, cash flow, capacity utilization, and employment.
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate an AD investigation of imports of quartz surface products from China. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the Initiation Checklist.
The petitioner based export price (EP) on quoted offer prices for quartz surface products produced in China.
Commerce considers China to be an NME country.
The petitioner claims that Mexico is an appropriate surrogate country for China because it is a market economy country that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of China, it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and public information is available to value factor input costs.
Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.
Because information regarding the FOPs and volume of inputs consumed by Chinese producers/exporters was not reasonably available, the petitioner used its own product-specific consumption rates to estimate the Chinese manufacturers' FOPs.
Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of quartz surface products from China are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for quartz surface products from China range from 303.38 percent to 336.69 percent.
Based upon the examination of the Petition, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an AD investigation to determine whether imports of quartz surface products from China are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.
The petitioner named 308 companies in China as producers/exporters of quartz surface products.
On April 30, 2018, Commerce released CBP data under administrative protective order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment on the CBP data must do so within three business days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of this AD investigation.
In addition, Commerce will post the Q&V questionnaire along with filing instructions on the Enforcement and Compliance website at
Producers/exporters of quartz surface products that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy of the Q&V questionnaire from Enforcement & Compliance's website. The Q&V response must be submitted by the relevant Chinese exporters/producers no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on May 21, 2018. All Q&V responses must be filed electronically via ACCESS.
In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.
Commerce will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petition have been provided to the government of China
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of quartz surface products from China are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, Commerce published
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The merchandise covered by the investigation is certain quartz surface products.
In addition, quartz surface products are covered by the investigation whether or not they are imported attached to, or in conjunction with, non-subject merchandise such as sinks, sink bowls, vanities, cabinets, and furniture. If quartz surface products are imported attached to, or in conjunction with, such non-subject merchandise, only the quartz surface product is covered by the scope.
Subject merchandise includes material matching the above description that has been finished, packaged, or otherwise fabricated in a third country, including by cutting, polishing, curing, edging, thermoforming, attaching to, or packaging with another product, or any other finishing, packaging, or fabrication that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the quartz surface products.
The scope of the investigation does not cover quarried stone surface products, such as granite, marble, soapstone, or quartzite. Specifically excluded from the scope of the investigation are crushed glass surface products. Crushed glass surface products are surface products in which the crushed glass content is greater than any other single material, by actual weight.
The products subject to the scope are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under the following subheading: 6810.99.0010. Subject merchandise may also enter under subheadings 6810.11.0010, 6810.11.0070, 6810.19.1200, 6810.19.1400, 6810.19.5000, 6810.91.0000, 6810.99.0080, 6815.99.4070, 2506.10.0010, 2506.10.0050, 2506.20.0010, 2506.20.0080. The HTSUS subheadings set forth above are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable May 7, 2018.
Darla Brown at (202) 482-1791, Joshua Tucker at (202) 482-2044, or Terre Keaton Stefanova at (202) 482-1280, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On April 17, 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of certain quartz surface products (quartz surface products) from the People's Republic of China (China), filed in proper form on behalf of Cambria Company LLC (the petitioner).
On April 20, 2018, Commerce requested supplemental information
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the Government of China (GOC) is providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of quartz surface products in China and imports of such products are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic quartz surface products industry in the United States. Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we are initiating a CVD investigation, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.
Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support necessary for the initiation of the requested CVD investigation.
Because the Petition was filed on April 17, 2018, the period of investigation is January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.
The products covered by this investigation are quartz surface products from China. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
During our review of the Petition, Commerce issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the
Commerce requests that any factual information parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All such submissions must be filed on the records of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified representatives of the GOC of the receipt of the Petition and provided them the opportunity for consultations with respect to the Petition.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation.
In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the Appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2017 and compared this to the estimated total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.
In a letter dated May 1, 2018, MSI, a U.S. importer, submitted comments on industry support and requested that Commerce poll the industry to determine industry support.
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, the General Issues Supplement, Industry Support Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition.
Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that it is requesting that Commerce initiate.
Because China is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from China materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
The petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and
Based on the examination of the Petition, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether imports of quartz surface products from China benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOC. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.
Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all but four of the alleged subsidy programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program,
The petitioner named 301 companies
On May 1, 2018, Commerce released CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment regarding the CBP data and respondent selection must do so within three business days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of this CVD investigation.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at
Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the date noted above. We intend to finalize our decisions regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice.
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public versions of the Petition have been provided to the GOC
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of quartz surface products from China are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). When submitting factual information, 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires any party to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, Commerce published
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The merchandise covered by the investigation is certain quartz surface products.
In addition, quartz surface products are covered by the investigation whether or not they are imported attached to, or in conjunction with, non-subject merchandise such as sinks, sink bowls, vanities, cabinets, and furniture. If quartz surface products are imported attached to, or in conjunction with, such non-subject merchandise, only the quartz surface product is covered by the scope.
Subject merchandise includes material matching the above description that has been finished, packaged, or otherwise fabricated in a third country, including by cutting, polishing, curing, edging, thermoforming, attaching to, or packaging with another product, or any other finishing, packaging, or fabrication that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the quartz surface products.
The scope of the investigation does not cover quarried stone surface products, such as granite, marble, soapstone, or quartzite. Specifically excluded from the scope of the investigation are crushed glass surface products. Crushed glass surface products are surface products in which the crushed glass content is greater than any other single material, by actual weight.
The products subject to the scope are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under the following subheading: 6810.99.0010. Subject merchandise may also enter under subheadings 6810.11.0010, 6810.11.0070, 6810.19.1200, 6810.19.1400, 6810.19.5000, 6810.91.0000, 6810.99.0080, 6815.99.4070, 2506.10.0010, 2506.10.0050, 2506.20.0010, 2506.20.0080. The HTSUS subheadings set forth above are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope is dispositive.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Groundfish Management Team (GMT) will hold a webinar that is open to the public.
The GMT webinar will be held Wednesday, May 30, 2018, from 1:30 p.m. until 4:30 p.m. The GMT webinar end time is an estimate, the meeting will adjourn when business for the day is completed.
To attend the webinar (1) join the meeting by visiting this link
Mr. John DeVore, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2413.
The primary purpose of the GMT webinar is to prepare for the June 2018 Pacific Council meeting. A detailed agenda for
Although nonemergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The public listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2411 at least 10 business days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 58 Stock Identification (ID) Review Workshop for Cobia.
The SEDAR 58 Cobia Stock ID Process will be a multi-step process consisting of a series of workshops and webinars: Stock ID Workshop; Stock ID Review Workshop; Joint Cooperator Technical Review; and Science and Management Leadership Call. See
The SEDAR 58 Cobia Stock ID Review Workshop will be held on June 5, 2018, from 1:30 p.m. to 6 p.m.; June 6, 2018, from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m.; and June 7, 2018, from 9 a.m. until 1 p.m. The established times may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the assessment process. Such adjustments may result in the meeting being extended from, or completed prior to the time established by this notice.
Julia Byrd, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a three-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing a workshop and/or webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. Cobia Stock ID will be resolved prior to the start of the SEDAR 58 Data Workshop using the multi-step Stock ID Process. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: Data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion at the Cobia Stock ID Review Workshop are as follows:
1. Review the recommendations of the SEDAR 58 Cobia Stock ID Workshop.
2. Determine whether the stock structure recommended by the SEDAR Stock ID Workshop is reasonable and appropriate to use for the SEDAR 58 assessment unit stock.
3. Prepare a report documenting the Review Panel's findings and recommendations regarding the SEDAR 58 assessment unit stock.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Legislative Committee will meet on June 5, 2018 in Kodiak, AK.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 5, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m.
The meeting will be held in the Katurwik Room at the Kodiak Harbor Convention Center, 236 Rezanof Drive, Kodiak, AK 99615.
David Witherell, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.
The meeting agenda includes: (a) Update on MSA legislation and related bills, including CCC comments, (b) public comment, and (c) recommendations to the Council. The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted either electronically to David Witherell, Council staff:
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received a request from Kitsap Transit for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the Annapolis Passenger Ferry Dock Project in Puget Sound, Washington. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorizations and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
Comments and information must be received no later than June 15, 2018.
Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments should be sent to
Jaclyn Daly, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental harassment authorizations with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the IHA request.
On March 5, 2018, NMFS received a request from Kitsap Transit for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving and removal associated with upgrades to the Annapolis Ferry Terminal, Puget Sound, Washington. Kitsap Transit submitted a revised application on May 3, 2018 which NMFS deemed adequate and complete. Kitsap Transit's request is for take of harbor seal (
Kitsap Transit is proposing to upgrade the existing dock at its Annapolis Ferry Terminal to accommodate larger vessels by extending the dock into deeper water and bring the terminal into compliance with American Disability Act (ADA) accessibility standards. The project includes removing 10 existing concrete and steel piles that support the existing pier and float and installing 12 new steel piles to support updated structures. Piles may be removed using a vibratory hammer and new piles may be installed using a vibratory and, if necessary, an impact hammer. The project is anticipated to take 8 weeks to complete and could start as early as July 2, 2018; however, Kitsap Transit anticipates it will take a maximum of 17 days to completed pile-related work.
The project would occur for eight weeks between July 1, 2018 and March 2, 2019. Pile removal has been conservatively estimated to occur at a rate of 2 piles removed per day, which would require 5 days to remove 10 piles. Pile installation was conservatively estimated to occur at a rate of 1 pile per day, which would require 12 days to install 12 piles. In total, there would be 17 days (maximum) of pile driving.
The Annapolis Ferry Terminal is located in Sinclair Inlet across from Navy Base Kitsap (NBK) Bremerton and southwest of Bainbridge Island. Potential areas ensonfied during pile driving include Sinclair Inlet and portions of Port Washington Narrows, Port Orchard Passage and Rich Passage. These waterbodies range up to 130 feet in depth and substrates include silt/mud, sand, gravel, cobbles and rock outcrops. The terminal itself and parking area contains a hardened shoreline comprised of sheet piles.
The Annapolis Ferry Terminal is 34 years old with a useful life of 40 years. Kitsap Transit has determined upgrades are necessary to meet ADA requirements and accommodate larger ferry vessels. These improvements are designed to improve the ferry operation, environmental conditions, overall experience for all passengers and provide equal access for elderly and disabled passengers. To make the upgrades, Kitsap Transit is removing a portion of the existing pier, installing a longer gangway, removing the existing float and installing a larger float in deeper water. This work requires removing existing decking with a concrete saw, removing 10 existing piles, and installing 12 new piles. The concrete saw would not cause in-air harassment as no pinnipeds haulout in the immediate vicinity of the dock; therefore, this activity is not discussed further.
Piles would be removed with a vibratory hammer. Piles would be installed using a vibratory hammer to refusal and then “proofed” with an impact hammer, if necessary. During impact hammering, Kitsap Transit would use a bubble curtain to reduce underwater sound pressure levels. The exact type and design of bubble curtain is not known.
Kitsap Transit estimates up to four piles could be removed per day and up to two piles would be installed per day. However, to account for unexpected issues, Kitsap Transit recognizes only two piles may be removed and one pile may be installed per day. Pile removal and installation would not occur on the same day. Therefore, the maximum amount of time spent removing 10 piles would be 5 days while the maximum amount of time installing 12 piles would be 12 days for a total of 17 days. The types of piles included in the project and schedule, are included in Table 1.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see “Proposed Mitigation” and “Proposed Monitoring and Reporting”).
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR;
Table 2 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in Puget Sound and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. All managed stocks in the specified geographical regions are assessed in either NMFS's U.S. Alaska SARs or U.S. Pacific SARs.
Seven species (comprising eight managed stocks) are considered to have the potential to co-occur with Kitsap Transit's proposed project. While there are several other species or stocks that occur in Washington inland waters, many are not expected to occur in the vicinity of the Annapolis Ferry Terminal due to its position within the Puget Sound. These species, such as Dall's porpoise (
All values presented in Table 2 are the most recent available at the time of writing and are available in the draft 2017 SARs (available online at:
All species that could potentially occur in the proposed project area are included in Table 2. As described below, all seven species could temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity; however, Kitsap Transit has proposed mitigation measures which eliminate the potential take of three of these species (gray whales, humpback whales, and killer whales). Therefore, Kitsap Transit has requested, and we are proposing to authorize, take of four marine mammal species: harbor seal, California sea lion, Steller sea lion, and harbor porpoise.
Gray whales are observed in Washington inland waters in all months of the year, with peak numbers from March through June (Calambokidis
In Sinclair Inlet and the surrounding waterways (Rich Passage, Dyes Inlet, and Agate Passage), 11 opportunistic sightings of gray whales were reported to the Orca Network (a public marine mammal sightings database) between 2003 and 2012. One stranding occurred at NBK Bremerton in 2013. Gray whales have been sighted in Hood Canal south of the Hood Canal Bridge on six occasions since 1999, including a stranded whale. The most recent report was in 2010.
Prior to 2016, humpback whales were listed under the ESA as an endangered species worldwide. Following a 2015 global status review (Bettridge
Within U.S. west coast waters, three current DPSs may occur: The Hawaii DPS (not listed), Mexico DPS (threatened), and Central America DPS (endangered). According to Wade
Most humpback whale sightings reported since 2003 were in the main basin of Puget Sound with numerous sightings in the waters between Point No Point and Whidbey Island, Possession Sound, and southern Puget Sound in the vicinity of Point Defiance. A few sightings of possible humpback whales were reported by Orca Network
Harbor seals in Washington inland waters have been divided into three stocks: Hood Canal, Northern Inland Waters, and Southern Puget Sound. Animals belonging to the latter stock are ones most likely to occur in the action area during pile driving. Harbor seals are the most common pinniped found in the action area and are present year-round. They haul out on rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting glacial ice and feed in marine, estuarine, and occasionally fresh waters. Harbor seals generally are non-migratory, with local movements associated with such factors as tides, weather, season, food availability, and reproduction (as reviewed in Carretta
There are no documented harbor seal haul-out within the immediate vicinity of the ferry terminal and much of the shoreline around the terminal has been armored with sheet-piling, preventing seals from hauling out. The nearest harbor seal haul-out is located in Dyes Inlet with less than 100 estimated individuals, approximately nine nautical miles from the site (Jefferies
California sea lions are typically present most of the year except for mid-June through July in Washington inland waters, with peak abundance numbers between October and May (NMFS, 1997; Jeffries
California sea lions have been documented during shore- and boat-based surveys at NBK Bremerton since 2010, with as many as 315 individuals hauled out at one time (November 2015) on port security barrier floats. On average, 69 sea lions have been observed daily.
Steller sea lions are not frequently observed near the action area. Shore-based surveys at NBK Bremerton (directly across Sinclar Inlet from the Annapolis Ferry Terminal) have not detected Steller sea lions since the surveys were initiated in 2010. However, a single Steller sea lion was sighted on the floating security barrier in 2012 and aerial surveys conducted by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) in 2013 noted Steller sea lion presence in the action area. WDFW identifies two Steller sea lion haulouts near the Annapolis Ferry Terminal: (1) Navigation buoys and net pen floats in Clam Bay and (2) NBK Bremerton port security barrier (Wiles, 2015). No pupping or breeding areas are present in the project area.
Groups of transient killer whales were observed for lengthy periods in Hood Canal in 2003 (59 days) and 2005 (172 days) (London, 2006), but were not observed again until 2016, when they were seen on a handful of days between March and May (including in Dabob Bay). Transient killer whales have been seen infrequently near NBK Bremerton, including in Dyes Inlet and Sinclair Inlet (
West Coast transient killer whales most often travel in small pods averaging four individuals (Baird and Dill, 1996); however, the most commonly observed group size in Puget Sound (waters east of Admiralty Inlet, including Hood Canal, through South Puget Sound and north to Skagit Bay) from 2004 to 2010 was 6 whales (Houghton
Critical habitat for southern resident killer whales, designated pursuant to the ESA, includes three specific areas: (1) Summer core area in Haro Strait and waters around the San Juan Islands; (2) Puget Sound; and (3) Strait of Juan de Fuca (71 FR 69054; November 29, 2006). The primary constituent elements essential for conservation of the habitat are: (1) Water quality to support growth and development; (2) Prey species of sufficient quantity, quality, and availability to support individual growth, reproduction, and development, as well as overall population growth; and (3) Passage conditions to allow for migration, resting, and foraging. However, the six naval installations are specifically excluded from the critical habitat designation. A revision to the critical habitat designation is currently under consideration (80 FR 9682; February 24, 2015).
Southern resident killer whales are expected to occur occasionally in the waters surrounding all of the installations except those in Hood Canal, where they have not been reported since 1995 (NMFS, 2006). Southern resident killer whales are rare near NBK Bremerton and Keyport, with the last confirmed sighting in Dyes Inlet in 1997. Southern residents have been observed in Saratoga Passage and Possession Sound near NS Everett.
The stock contains three pods (J, K, and L pods), with pod sizes ranging from approximately 20 (in J pod) to 40 (in L pod) individuals. Group sizes encountered can be smaller or larger if pods temporarily separate or join together. Therefore, some exposure to groups of up to 20 individuals or more could occur over the 5-year duration.
Harbor porpoises, once very common in Puget Sound, are recovering from a virtual disappearance in the 1970s (Jefferson
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
• Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 hertz (Hz) and 35 kilohertz (kHz);
• Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked whales, and most delphinids): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
• High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and members of the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus; including two members of the genus Lagenorhynchus, on the basis of recent echolocation data and genetic data): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz.
• Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true seals): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 50 Hz to 86 kHz;
• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz.
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2016) for a review of available information. Seven marine mammal species (four cetacean and three pinniped (two otariid and one phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the proposed survey activities. Please refer to Table 2. Of the cetacean species that may be present, two are classified as low-frequency cetaceans (
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The “Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination” section considers the content of this section, the “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section, and the “Proposed Mitigation” section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and how those impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or stocks.
This section contains a brief technical background on sound, on the characteristics of certain sound types, and on metrics used in this proposal inasmuch as the information is relevant to the specified activity and to a discussion of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals found later in this document. For general information on sound and its interaction with the marine environment, please see,
Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and is measured in Hz or cycles per second. Wavelength is the distance between two peaks or corresponding points of a sound wave (length of one cycle). Higher frequency sounds have shorter wavelengths than lower frequency sounds, and typically attenuate (decrease) more rapidly, except in certain cases in shallower water. Amplitude is the height of the sound pressure wave or the “loudness” of a sound and is typically described using the relative unit of the dB. A sound pressure level (SPL) in dB is described as the ratio between a measured pressure and a reference pressure (for underwater sound, this is 1 microPascal (μPa)), and is a logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations in amplitude; therefore, a relatively small change in dB corresponds to large changes in sound pressure. The source level (SL) represents the SPL referenced at a distance of 1 meter (m) from the source (referenced to 1 μPa), while the received level is the SPL at the listener's position (referenced to 1 μPa).
Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over the duration of an impulse. Root mean square is calculated by squaring all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square root of the average (Urick, 1983). Root mean square accounts for both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed through averaged units than by peak pressures.
Sound exposure level (SEL; represented as dB re 1 μPa
When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in a manner similar to ripples on the surface of a pond and may be either directed in a beam or beams or may radiate in all directions
Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound, which is defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a single source or point (Richardson
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources that comprise ambient sound at any given location and time depends not only on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and human activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB from day to day (Richardson
Underwater ambient sound in Puget Sound is comprised of sounds produced by a number of natural and anthropogenic sources and varies both geographically and temporally. Human-generated sound is a significant contributor to the ambient acoustic environment at the installations considered here. The underwater acoustic environment at the Annapolis Ferry Terminal is dependent upon the presence of ferries, other vessel traffic, and construction work occurring at nearby NBK Bremerton and the Manette Bridge. If ferries are approaching or docking, ambient sound levels would be higher than in absence of vessels.
Sounds are often considered to fall into one of two general types: pulsed and non-pulsed (defined in the following). The distinction between these two sound types is important because they have differing potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to hearing (
Pulsed sound sources (
We previously provided general background information on marine mammal hearing (see
Richardson
We describe the more severe effects (
NMFS defines threshold shift (TS) as “a change, usually an increase, in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level” (NMFS, 2016). Threshold shift can be permanent (PTS) or temporary (TTS). As described in NMFS (2016), there are numerous factors to consider when examining the consequence of TS, including, but not limited to, the signal temporal pattern (
NMFS defines PTS as “a permanent, irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level” (NMFS, 2016). It is the permanent elevation in hearing threshold resulting from irreparable damage to structures of the inner ear (
With the exception of a single study unintentionally inducing PTS in a harbor seal (Kastak
NMFS defines TTS as “a temporary, reversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level” (NMFS, 2016). A TTS of 6 dB is considered the minimum threshold shift clearly larger than any day-to-day or session-to-session variation in a subject's normal hearing ability (Finneran
Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin (
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events (Wartzok
Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be significant (
Changes in dive behavior can vary widely and may consist of increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive (
Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary indicators (
Variations in respiration naturally vary with different behaviors and alterations to breathing rate as a function of acoustic exposure can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute stress response. Various studies have shown that respiration rates may either be unaffected or could increase, depending on the species and signal characteristics, again highlighting the importance in understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic sound exposure (
Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have been observed to increase the length of their songs (Miller
Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance in marine mammals (Richardson
A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in the intensity of the response (
Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in more subtle ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to diversion of focus and attention (
Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors such as sound exposure are more likely to be significant if they last more than one diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall
Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that are affected by stress—including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior—are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune competence, and behavioral disturbance (
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and “distress” is the cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves sufficient to restore normal function.
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals (
Under certain circumstances, marine mammals experiencing significant
The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important in determining any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation sounds produced by odontocetes but are more likely to affect detection of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species. The masking of communication signals by anthropogenic noise may be considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals (
Masking affects both senders and receivers of acoustic signals and can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammals at the population level as well as at the individual level. Low-frequency ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, with most of the increase from distant commercial shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, but especially chronic and lower-frequency signals (
These behavioral changes may include changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of areas where sound sources are located; and/or flight responses (Richardson
The biological significance of many of these behavioral disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral modification could be expected to be biologically significant if the change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. Significant behavioral modifications that could lead to effects on growth, survival, or reproduction, such as drastic changes in diving/surfacing patterns or significant habitat abandonment are extremely unlikely in this area (
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic sound depends on both external factors (characteristics of sound sources and their paths) and the specific characteristics of the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is difficult to predict (Southall
Whether impact or vibratory driving, sound sources would be active for relatively short durations, with relation to potential for masking. The frequencies output by pile driving activity are lower than those used by most species expected to be regularly present for communication or foraging. We expect insignificant impacts from masking, and any masking event that could possibly rise to Level B harassment under the MMPA would occur concurrently within the zones of behavioral harassment already estimated for vibratory and impact pile driving, and which have already been taken into account in the exposure analysis.
The proposed activities would not result in permanent impacts to habitats used directly by marine mammals, but may have potential short-term impacts to food sources such as forage fish. The proposed activities could also affect acoustic habitat (see masking discussion above), but meaningful impacts are unlikely. There are no known foraging hotspots, or other ocean bottom structures of significant biological importance to marine mammals present in the marine waters in the vicinity of the project areas. Therefore, the main impact issue associated with the proposed activity would be temporarily elevated sound levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals, as discussed previously in this preamble. The most likely impact to marine mammal habitat occurs from pile driving effects on likely marine mammal prey (
Fish utilize the soundscape and components of sound in their environment to perform important functions such as foraging, predator avoidance, mating, and spawning (
Fish react to sounds which are especially strong and/or intermittent low-frequency sounds, and behavioral responses such as flight or avoidance are the most likely effects. Short duration, sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local distribution. The reaction of fish to noise depends on the physiological state of the fish, past exposures, motivation (
SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury to fish and fish mortality. However, in most fish species, hair cells in the ear continuously regenerate and loss of auditory function likely is restored when damaged cells are replaced with new cells. Halvorsen
The most likely impact to fish from pile driving activities at the project areas would be temporary behavioral avoidance of the area. The duration of fish avoidance of an area after pile driving stops is unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and behavior is anticipated. In general, impacts to marine mammal prey species are expected to be minor and temporary due to the expected short daily duration of individual pile driving events and the relatively small areas being affected. It is also not expected that the industrial environment around the terminal and nearby Naval installation provides important fish habitat or harbors significant amounts of forage fish.
The area likely impacted by the activities is relatively small compared to the available habitat in inland waters in the region. Any behavioral avoidance by fish of the disturbed area would still leave significantly large areas of fish and marine mammal foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity. As described in the preceding, the potential for Navy construction to affect the availability of prey to marine mammals or to meaningfully impact the quality of physical or acoustic habitat is considered to be insignificant. Effects to habitat will not be discussed further in this document.
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration of “small numbers” and the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to pile driving. Based on the nature of the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures (
As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these components in more detail and present the proposed take estimate.
Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources—Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source (
Kitsap Transit's project includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile driving) and impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, and therefore the 120
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources—NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 2016) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). Kitsap Transit's proposed activity includes the use of impulsive (impact pile driving) and non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving) sources.
These thresholds are provided in Table 3. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2016 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds.
This formula neglects loss due to scattering and absorption, which is assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound propagates away from a sound source is dependent on a variety of factors, most notably the water bathymetry and presence or absence of reflective or absorptive conditions including in-water structures and sediments. Spherical spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed (free-field) environment not limited by depth or water surface, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (20*log(range)). Cylindrical spreading occurs in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the water surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (10*log(range)). As is common practice in coastal waters, here we assume practical spreading loss (4.5 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance). Practical spreading is a compromise that is often used under conditions where water depth increases as the receiver moves away from the shoreline, resulting in an expected propagation environment that would lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading loss conditions.
No direct pile driving measurements at the Annapolis Ferry Dock are available. Therefore, Kitsap Transit reviewed available values from multiple nearshore marine projects obtained from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) using similar type of piles (
The source levels presented in Table 4 are those proposed by Kitsap Transit and correspond with those found in Caltrans (2015). However, because NMFS recently proposed regulations for the U.S. Navy at multiple sites throughout Puget Sound, including NBK Bremerton located across Sinclair Inlet, NMFS also evaluated source levels used in that proposed rule. The source level provided in the Navy's proposed rule (83 FR 9366; March 5, 2018) for impact pile driving 24-in steel piles is slightly higher than that being used for this proposed IHA. Kitsap Transit proposed a source level of 178 dB SEL for impact pile driving 24-in steel piles in their application while the Navy proposed (and NMFS included in the proposed rule) a source level of 181 dB SEL. However, we accept Kitsap Transit's proposed source levels for two reasons. First, the Navy excluded three projects for which data from 24-in pile driving was available due to a low number of pile strikes and because these projects produced lower SEL values than the two projects considered in the proposed rule. Overall, the mean SEL per any one pile for the two projects considered by the Navy (Bainbridge Island and Friday Harbor) ranged from 176 to 185 dB; however, the three projects not considered (Bangor Test Pile Program, Conoco-Phillips dock, and Deep Water-Tongue Point Facility Pier Repairs) produced SELs ranging from 168 to 177 dB SEL. Second, we accept Kitsap Transit's proposed source levels because they would employ bubble curtains during all impact pile driving which is known to reduce noise levels but we are not accounting for that attenuation in this proposed IHA. Kitsap Transit's proposed source levels for impact pile driving 12-in steel piles and all vibratory pile driving and pile removal correspond to or are slightly greater than those in Caltrans (2015) and the Navy's proposed rule; therefore, we apply them here.
When NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in the new thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which will result in some degree of overestimate of Level A take. However, these tools offer the best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address the output where appropriate. For stationary sources such as pile driving, NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance the whole duration of the activity, it would not incur PTS. A description of inputs used in the User Spreadsheet, and the resulting isopleths are reported below.
Kitsap Transit estimates it will take a maximum of six hours, per day, to install or remove piles using a vibratory hammer (up to four piles per day). For steel piles that are “proofed,” Kitsap Transit estimated approximately 1,000 hammer strikes per pile would be required with two piles installed per day. If piles can be installed completely with the vibratory hammer, Kitsap Transit would not use an impact hammer; however, it is included here as a possibility. A practical spreading model (15logR) was used for all calculation. NMFS considered these inputs when using the NMFS user spreadsheet (Table 5).
As described above, the Level B harassment threshold for impulsive noise (
Distances corresponding to received levels reaching NMFS harassment thresholds are provided in Table 6.
In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take calculations.
Available information regarding marine mammal occurrence in the vicinity of the Annapolis Ferry Terminal includes density information aggregated in the Navy's Marine Mammal Species Density Database (NMSDD; Navy, 2015) or site-specific survey information from particular installations (
Specifically, a density-based analysis is used for the harbor porpoise, Dall's porpoise, and Steller sea lion, while data from site-specific abundance surveys is used for the California sea lion and harbor seal (Table 7).
Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
Kitsap Transit did not request, and we are not proposing, to authorize Level A take of any species. The User Spreadsheet does calculate distances at which Level A take could occur for all pile activity. The largest resulting distances are for the installation of 24-in piles. The calculated distance represents the distance at which an animal would have to remain while exposed to the installation of two piles (with time in between to reset the hammer to the next pile) at 1,000 strikes per pile. In addition, only eight 24-in piles are to be installed for the project. The harbor porpoise Level A harassment distance is 876 m; however, harbor porpoise are likely transiting through the area, if present at all. Harbor seals may remain in the area. Therefore, with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures, we do not believe there is a likely potential for Level A take for any species. Further, no take (either Level A or Level B) of humpback whales, gray whales, and killer whales was requested or is proposed to be authorized due to the short duration of the project (17 days), the small amount of piles installed (12) and removed (5), and the incorporation of the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures (see
The take calculation for harbor seal, Steller sea lion, and harbor porpoise exposures is derived using the following equation:
The calculation for California sea lion exposures is estimated by the following equation:
The total estimated take for all species incidental to 17 days of pile driving is provided in Table 8.
In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned) the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned). and;
(2) the practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
Kitsap Transit has proposed a number of mitigation measures designed to minimize the impacts of the project on marine mammals and their habitat. Below is a description of these measures which can also be found in the draft proposed IHA text provided at the end of this document.
For in-water heavy machinery work (
Kitsap Transit proposes to shut down pile driving if marine mammals for which they requested take enter the Level A harassment zones as calculated in Table 6. However, these distances represent a very long duration (6 hours for pile driving plus an unknown amount of time to re-set piles) during vibratory pile driving. Therefore, we have adjusted the shutdown zones to a more practicable level. We also incorporate the shutdown zones corresponding to Level B harassment for humpback whales, gray whales, and killer whales. Kitsap Transit shall implement shutdown zones as identified in Table 9 to avoid Level A take of seals, sea lions, and harbor porpoise as well as Level A and Level B take of humpback whales, gray whales, and killer whales. Kitsap Transit shall also implement a minimum shutdown zone of a 10 m radius around the pile.
Pre-activity monitoring shall take place from 30 minutes prior to initiation of pile driving activity and post-activity monitoring shall continue through 30 minutes post-completion of pile driving activity. Pile driving may commence at the end of the 30-minute pre-activity monitoring period, provided observers have determined that the shutdown zone (see Table 6) is clear of marine mammals, which includes delaying start of pile driving activities if a marine mammal is sighted in the shutdown zone. A determination that the shutdown zone is clear must be made during a period of good visibility (
If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone during activities or pre-activity monitoring, all pile driving activities at that location shall be halted or delayed, respectively. If pile driving is halted or delayed due to the presence of a marine mammal, the activity may not resume or commence until either the animal has voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone and 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of the
Kitsap Transit shall use soft start techniques when impact pile driving. Soft start requires contractors to provide an initial set of strikes at reduced energy, followed by a thirty-second waiting period, then two subsequent reduced energy strike sets. Soft start shall be implemented at the start of each day's impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of impact pile driving for a period of thirty minutes or longer.
If a species for which authorization has not been granted (including humpback whales, gray whales, and killer whales), or a species for which authorization has been granted but the authorized takes are met, is observed approaching or within the Level B Isopleth (Table 6 and 9), pile driving and removal activities must shut down immediately using delay and shut-down procedures. Activities must not resume until the animal has been confirmed to have left the area or the observation time period has elapsed.
Kitsap Transit shall use a bubble curtain during all impact pile driving. We note the estimated source levels used to calculate Level A harassment zones did not consider any reduction in noise from use of this bubble curtain (
Kitsap Transit shall access the Orca Network website each morning prior to in-water construction activities and if pile removal or installation ceases for more than two hours. If marine mammals for which take is not authorized (
Kitsap Transit shall implement the use of best management practices (
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks.
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
For all pile driving activities, at least one protected species observer (PSOs) shall be stationed at the on-shore vantage point at the outer portion of the pier to be retained to monitor and implement shutdown or delay procedures, when applicable, through communication with the equipment operator.
If water conditions exceed a Beaufort level 2, or if visibility is limited by rain or fog, an additional on-shore observer will be positioned at the Bremerton Marina and/or a monitor will patrol the monitoring zone in a boat.
Monitoring of pile driving shall be conducted by qualified PSOs (see below), who shall have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods. Kitsap Transit shall adhere to the following conditions when selecting observers:
• Independent, dedicated PSOs shall be used (
• At least one PSO must have prior experience working as a marine mammal observer during construction activities.
• Other PSOs may substitute education (degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience.
• Where a team of three or more PSOs are required, a lead observer or monitoring coordinator shall be designated. The lead observer must have prior experience working as a marine mammal observer during construction.
• The Kitsap Transit shall submit PSO CVs for approval by NMFS.
Kitsap Transit shall ensure that observers have the following additional qualifications:
• Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols.
• Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors.
• Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations.
• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation of mitigation (or why mitigation was not implemented when required); and marine mammal behavior.
• Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.
Kitsap Transit would also be required to submit an annual report summarizing their monitoring efforts, number of animals taken, any implementation of mitigation measures (
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
Pile driving activities associated with the Annapolis Ferry Terminal Project, as described previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance) only from underwater sounds generated from pile driving. Potential takes could occur if individual marine mammals are present in the ensonified zone when pile driving is happening. No serious injury or mortality would be expected even in the absence of the proposed mitigation measures. Further, while Level A harassment potential is calculated, it is based on long exposure durations (6 hours of vibratory pile driving and 2,000 pile strikes); therefore, the true Level A harassment distances, if any, are likely closer than those provided in Table 6. Further, the potential for injury is s is expected to be essentially eliminated through implementation of the planned mitigation measures—use of the bubble curtain for impact driving steel piles, soft start (for impact driving), and shutdown zones. Impact driving, as compared with vibratory driving, has source characteristics (short, sharp pulses with higher peak levels and much sharper rise time to reach those peaks) that are potentially injurious or more likely to produce severe behavioral reactions. Given sufficient notice through use of soft start, marine mammals are expected to move away from a sound source that is annoying prior to its becoming potentially injurious or resulting in more severe behavioral reactions. Environmental conditions in inland waters are expected to generally be good, with calm sea states, and we expect conditions would allow a high marine mammal detection capability, enabling a high rate of success in implementation of shutdowns to avoid injury.
We anticipate individuals exposed to pile driving noise generated at the Annapolis Ferry Terminal will, at most, simply move away from the sound source and be temporarily displaced from the areas of pile driving. The pile driving activities analyzed here are similar to, or less impactful than, numerous other construction activities conducted in the Puget Sound region, which have taken place with no known long-term adverse consequences from behavioral harassment. No pupping or breeding areas are present within the action area. Further, animals are likely somewhat habituated to noise-generating human activity given the proximity to Seattle-Bremerton and Port Orchard ferry lanes, recent construction at NBK Bremerton and the Manette Bridge (both of which involve pile driving), and general recreational, commercial and military vessel traffic. Monitoring reports from the Manette Bridge and NBK Bremerton demonstrate no discernable individual or population level impacts from similar pile driving activities.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No mortality is anticipated or authorized;
• As a result of the nature of the activity in concert with the planned mitigation requirements, injury is not anticipated for any species;
• The anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior;
• There is no significant habitat within the industrialized project areas, including known areas or features of special significance for foraging or reproduction; and
• The proposed mitigation measures reduce the effects of the specified activity to the level of least practicable adverse impact.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
We propose to authorize incidental take of four marine mammal stocks. The total amount of taking proposed for authorization is less than 2 percent of the stock of Steller sea lions, California sea lions, and harbor porpoise and less than 20 percent for harbor seals (see Table X). We note that harbor seals takes likely represent multiple exposures of fewer individuals. The amount of take proposed is considered relatively small percentages and we preliminarily find are small numbers of marine mammals relative to the estimated overall population abundances for those stocks.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for authorization or expected to result from this activity. On April 5, 2018, NMFS WCR issued a Biological Opinion to the Federal Transit Administration concluding the project is not likely to adversely affect Southern Resident killer whales and the Western North Pacific and Central American humpback whale distinct population segments (DPSs). Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to Kitsap Transit for conducting pile driving and removal in Puget Sound over the course of 17 days, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).
This Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) is valid for a period of one year from the date of issuance.
This IHA is valid only for pile driving associated with the Annapolis Ferry Dock Project, Puget Sound.
A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of Kitsap Transit, its designees, and work crew personnel operating under the authority of this IHA.
The species authorized for taking are the harbor seal (
The taking, by Level B harassment only, is limited to the species listed in Table 8. See Table 8 for numbers of take authorized.
The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or death of any of the species listed in condition 3(b) of the Authorization or any taking of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA. Kitsap Transit shall conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, acoustical monitoring team, and Kitsap Transit staff prior to the start of all pile driving, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.
For in-water heavy machinery work (
For all pile driving activity, Kitsap Transit shall implement shutdown zones as described in Table 9.
For all pile driving activity, Kitsap Transit shall implement a minimum shutdown zone of a 10 m radius around the pile.
Pre-activity monitoring shall take place from 30 minutes prior to initiation of pile driving activity and post-activity monitoring shall continue through 30 minutes post-completion of pile driving activity. Pile driving may commence at the end of the 30-minute pre-activity monitoring period, provided observers have determined that the shutdown zone (see Table 6) is clear of marine mammals, which includes delaying start of pile driving activities if a marine mammal is sighted in the shutdown zone.
A determination that the shutdown zone is clear must be made during a period of good visibility (
If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone during activities or pre-activity monitoring, all pile driving activities at that location shall be halted or delayed, respectively. If pile driving is halted or delayed due to the presence of a marine mammal, the activity may not resume or commence until either the animal has voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone and 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal. Pile driving activities include the time to install or remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than thirty minutes.
Kitsap Transit shall use soft start techniques when impact pile driving. Soft start requires contractors to provide an initial set of strikes at reduced energy, followed by a thirty-second waiting period, then two subsequent reduced energy strike sets. Soft start shall be implemented at the start of each day's impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of impact pile driving for a period of thirty minutes or longer.
Kitsap Transit shall access the Orca Network website each morning prior to in-water construction activities and if pile removal or installation ceases for more than two hours. If marine mammals for which take is not authorized (
Kitsap Transit shall reduce the transmission of impulsive noise into the marine environment by using a bubble curtain during all impact pile driving.
If a species for which authorization has not been granted, or a species for which authorization has been granted but the authorized takes are met, is observed approaching or within the Level B isopleth, pile driving and removal activities must shut down immediately using delay and shut-down procedures. Activities must not resume until the animal has been confirmed to have left the area or the observation time period has elapsed.
Monitoring of pile driving shall be conducted by qualified PSOs (see below), who shall have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods.
For all pile driving activities, at least one protected species observer (PSOs) shall be stationed at the on-shore vantage point at the outer portion of the
If water conditions exceed a Beaufort level 2, or if visibility is limited by rain or fog, an additional on-shore observer will be positioned at the Bremerton Marina and/or a monitor will patrol the monitoring zone in a boat.
The PSO shall access the Orca Network each morning prior to in-water construction activities that may produce noise levels above the disturbance threshold and if pile removal or installation ceases for more than two hours.
Kitsap Transit shall adhere to the following conditions when selecting observers:
Independent PSOs shall be used (
The PSO must have prior experience working as a marine mammal observer during construction activities.
Kitsap Transit shall submit PSO CVs for approval by NMFS.
Kitsap Transit shall ensure that observers have the following additional qualifications:
Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols.
Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors.
Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations.
Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation of mitigation (or why mitigation was not implemented when required); and marine mammal behavior.
Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this IHA, such as an serious injury, or mortality, Kitsap Transit shall immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources (301-427-8401), NMFS, and the West Coast Region Stranding Coordinator (1-866-767-6114), NMFS. The report must include the following information:
Time and date of the incident;
Description of the incident;
Environmental conditions (
Description of all marine mammal observations and active sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
Fate of the animal(s); and
Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with Kitsap Transit to determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Kitsap Transit may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS.
In the event Kitsap Transit discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
The report must include the same information identified in 6(b)(i) of this IHA. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with Kitsap Transit to determine whether additional mitigation measures or modifications to the activities are appropriate.
In the event that Kitsap Transit discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
Renewals—On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a second one-year IHA without additional notice when (1) another year of identical or nearly identical activities as described in the Specified Activities section is planned or (2) the activities would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a second IHA would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section, provided all of the following conditions are met:
A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to expiration of the current IHA.
The request for renewal must include the following:
An explanation that the activities to be conducted beyond the initial dates either are identical to the previously analyzed activities or include changes so minor (
A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.
Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures remain the same and appropriate, and the original findings remain valid.
We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for Kitsap Transit's proposed Annapolis Ferry Terminal upgrades. We also request comment on the potential for renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the request for MMPA authorization.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a second one-year IHA without additional notice when (1) another year of identical or nearly identical activities as described in the Specified Activities section is planned or (2) the activities would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a second IHA would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the
• A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to expiration of the current IHA.
• The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted beyond the initial dates either are identical to the previously analyzed activities or include changes so minor (
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.
• Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures remain the same and appropriate, and the original findings remain valid.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for a new award for fiscal year (FY) 2018 for the Center To Improve Social and Emotional Learning and School Safety (Center)—Cooperative Agreement, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.424B.
For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Eve Birge, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3C147, Washington, DC 20202-6450. Telephone: (202) 453-6717. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Positive social and emotional skills and abilities help students attain and apply knowledge and attitudes that enhance personal development, social relationships, and ethical behavior.
Research shows that how students interact with their peers and teachers, approach their schoolwork, and form beliefs about learning has implications on how they perform in the classroom.
A recent meta-study of 82 school-based, universal SEL interventions involving nearly 100,000 students found that SEL benefits youth development, including improved social and emotional skills, attitudes, indicators of well-being, and increased graduation rates.
Another study analyzed the economic impact of six SEL programs and found that on average, every dollar invested yields $11 in long-term benefits, ranging from improved mental and physical health, reduced juvenile crime, and higher lifetime earnings.
But implementation is not always consistent. When there is not adequate training or understanding by implementers, assessment of efficacy, or accountability, it can jeopardize positive student impacts.
For the purpose of this notice inviting applications, SEL includes developing and maintaining positive relationships with peers and adults; using self-control; building social skills, including recognizing and managing emotions in oneself; understanding others' emotions and perspectives; making responsible
Under the ESEA, States have an opportunity to broaden their measures of student success to include SEL measures. LEAs that receive funds under the ESEA Title IV-A Student Support and Academic Enrichment (SSAE) Grants program may, under section 4107(a)(3)(J) of the ESEA, use those funds for SEL activities, including interventions that build resilience, self-control, empathy, persistence, and other social and behavioral skills. The following excerpt is taken from the guidance published by the Department on the SSAE grant program (
State-level policies are being developed that reflect these competencies, their expansion, and measurement. Forty-five out of fifty-six ESSA State plans submitted to the Department included SEL programming and skill building. Recently released findings of the 2015-2016 School Survey on Crime and Safety revealed that 66.3 percent of all public schools have SEL programs for students.
The Aspen Institute's National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development released a report in January 2018, How learning happens: Supporting students' social, emotional, and academic development, in which they demonstrate that SEL programming and skill building are inextricably linked to improved academic outcomes and student success; particularly salient is the assertion that professional development and training are essential in order for potential gains to be realized.
There are many approaches to improving SEL skills and abilities. In order to meet the unique needs and preferences of States and districts, the Center must be able to provide technical assistance on a wide array of approaches. The Center must be able to identify core features of SEL and the components necessary to support implementation so that it can support States and districts with a variety of EBPPs that fit their local contexts. This flexibility and the capacity to accommodate a range of needs and requests can be accomplished, in part, by reviewing the research and evidence and developing a common understanding of the tenets or foundations on which this body of work and assistance can be built.
This priority is:
The purpose of the Center is to provide technical assistance to support implementation of social and emotional learning (SEL) evidence-based programs and practices (EBPPs) by enhancing the capacity of (1) SEAs to support their LEAs and (2) LEAs to support their schools.
To meet this priority, applicants must submit a plan demonstrating that the Center will be designed to—
(a) Improve skills of SEA personnel to—
(1) Promote SEL EBPPs through policies, funding mechanisms, and interagency coordination;
(2) Collect and analyze data to inform decision-making regarding implementation of SEL EBPPs; and
(3) Develop the capacity, partnerships, and proficiency needed to provide expert technical assistance regarding implementation of SEL EBPPs.
(b) Improve skills of LEA personnel to—
(1) Implement SEL EBPPs; and
(2) Collect and use data to inform decision-making regarding implementation of SEL EBPPs.
(c) Establish a cadre of subject matter experts to provide training to SEAs and LEAs on how to implement a wide array of SEL EBPPs.
(d) Develop reliable and valid tools and processes for measuring outcomes and evaluating the fidelity of the implementation of SEL EBPPs.
(e) Coordinate with other federally funded technical assistance centers, such as the Department's Office of Safe and Healthy Students' (OSHS) National Technical Assistance Center for the Education of Neglected or Delinquent Children and Youth, the Department's Office of Special Education Programs' (OSEP) and OSHS' Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports OSEP Technical Assistance Center, and OSEP's Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities—Technical Assistance Center on Positive
(i) Demonstrates a statistically significant effect on improving student outcomes or other relevant outcomes based on—
(I) Strong evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented experimental study;
(II) Moderate evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented quasi-experimental study; or
(III) Promising evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias; or
(ii)(I) Demonstrates a rationale based on high-quality research findings or positive evaluation that such activity, strategy, or intervention is likely to improve student outcomes or other relevant outcomes; and
(II) Includes ongoing efforts to examine the effects of such activity, strategy, or intervention.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
1.
The maximum score for addressing all of the selection criteria is 100 points. The points assigned to each criterion are indicated in parentheses following the criterion. Non-Federal peer reviewers will review each application and score
(a)
The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the needs of the target population. (10 points)
(ii) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project. (10 points)
(iii) The likelihood that the proposed project will result in system change or improvement. (10 points)
In addressing this criterion, an applicant must describe, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance of the Project,” how the proposed project will—
(1) Address the current and emerging needs of SEAs and LEAs to implement, scale-up, and sustain SEL EBPPs as evidenced by the ability and capacity to (i) present applicable national, State, regional, or local data demonstrating the needs of SEAs and LEAs to implement, scale-up, and sustain SEL EBPPs; and (ii) demonstrate knowledge of current policy initiatives and issues relating to implementing, scaling, and sustaining SEL EBPPs within the context of school improvement efforts; and
(2) Result in (i) improved quality of SEL programming implementation; and (ii) increased scale-up of program implementation in LEAs and SEAs over the course of the project period.
(b)
The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project.
(i) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. (5 points)
In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(ii) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable. (15 points)
(iii) The extent to which the technical assistance services to be provided by the proposed project involve the use of efficient strategies, including the use of technology, as appropriate, and the leveraging of non-project resources. (15 points)
In addressing this criterion, an applicant must describe, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of Project Services,” how the proposed project will—
(1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, linguistic diversity, gender, age, or disability; in addition to vulnerable populations such as students that have had contact with the child welfare or juvenile justice systems or who have experienced homelessness. For example, describe the process that will be used to (i) identify the needs of the intended recipients for technical assistance and information; and (ii) ensure that services and products meet the needs of the intended recipients;
(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. Evidence to address this includes (i) measurable intended project outcomes; and (ii) the theory of action on how the proposed project will achieve the intended project outcomes;
(3) Use a conceptual framework to guide the development of project plans and activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed relationship or linkages among these variables, and any empirical support for this framework;
(4) Develop products and provide services that are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to achieve the intended outcomes of the proposed project. For example, describe (i) proposed activities to identify, develop, or expand the knowledge base of researchers, trainers, technical assistance providers, and practitioners; (ii) proposed approach to general technical assistance, including the intended recipients of the products and services under this approach; (iii) proposed approach to targeted technical assistance, including the intended recipients of the products and services, and its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential recipients to work with the project, including their infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity; and (iv) proposed approach to intensive, sustained technical assistance, including the intended recipients of the products and services under this approach;
(5) Develop products and implement services to maximize the project's efficiency. For example, describe (i) how the proposed project will use technology to achieve the intended project outcomes; (ii) how the proposed project will collaborate with other related centers supported by the Department; (iii) with whom the proposed project will collaborate and the intended outcomes of this collaboration; and (iv) how the proposed project will use non-project resources effectively to achieve the intended project outcomes; and
(6) Maintain a website that meets government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility.
(c)
The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project. (5 points)
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes. (5 points)
In addressing this criterion, an applicant must describe, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Evaluation Plan,” how—
(1) The proposed project will collect and analyze data related to specific and measurable goals, objectives, and intended outcomes of the project. Evidence to address this includes (i) proposed evaluation methodologies, including instruments, data collection methods, and possible analyses; (ii) proposed standards or targets for determining effectiveness; and (iii) proposed methods for collecting data on implementation supports and fidelity of implementation;
(2) The proposed project will use the evaluation results to examine the effectiveness of the project's implementation strategies and the progress toward achieving intended outcomes;
(3) The methods of evaluation will produce quantitative and qualitative data that demonstrate whether the project achieved the intended outcomes; and
(4) The proposed project will identify key components (
(d)
The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks. (10 points)
(ii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project. (10 points)
(iii) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or others, as appropriate. (5 points)
In addressing this criterion, an applicant must describe, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Management Plan,” how—
(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. For example, clearly define and describe (i) responsibilities for key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors, as appropriate; and (ii) timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks, recognizing the proposed project period spans up to 60 months;
(2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors will be allocated to the project and demonstrate the appropriateness and adequacy of these time allocations to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and services provided are of high quality, including the method and regularity by which quantitative data will be collected on the scope and frequency of product use and the role(s) of users;
(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including families, educators, technical assistance providers, researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and operation; and
(5) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
4.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report
5.
(a) Program performance measures. The Department has established the following performance measures for assessing the effectiveness of the Center to Improve Social and Emotional Learning and School Safety—Cooperative Agreement:
• The number of training and technical assistance events provided by the Center to SEAs and LEAs.
• The percentage of training and technical assistance services and products provided by the Center to SEAs and LEAs that are deemed to be useful through an independent expert review.
• For a representative sample of LEAs that receive training or technical assistance, the percentage of LEAs in which SEL EBPPs are implemented in schools with fidelity as determined through an independent expert review.
(b) Performance measure targets. The applicant must propose in the application annual targets for the measures listed in paragraph (a). As directed under 34 CFR 75.110(b), applicants must include why each proposed performance target is ambitious yet achievable compared to the baseline for the performance measure.
(c) As required under 34 CFR 75.110(c), the applicant must also describe:
(1) The data collection and reporting methods the applicant would use and why those methods are likely to yield reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data; and
(2) The applicant's capacity to collect and report reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data, as evidenced by high-quality data collection, analysis, and reporting in other projects or research.
If the applicant does not have experience with collection and reporting of performance data through other projects or research, the applicant should provide other evidence of capacity to successfully carry out data collection and reporting for its proposed project. The reviewers of each application will score related selection criteria on the basis of how well an applicant has considered the requirements in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation of the project.
The grantee must submit an annual performance report and final performance report with information that is responsive to the performance measures. The Department will consider these data in making annual continuation awards.
Consistent with 34 CFR 75.591, the grantee funded under this program shall comply with the requirements of any evaluation of the program conducted by the Department or an evaluator selected by the Department.
6.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education is issuing a notice inviting applications for fiscal year (FY) 2018 for the Fulbright-Hays Group Projects Abroad (GPA) program, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.021A.
For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Carla White, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 258-22, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-6304. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
There are three types of GPA short-term projects: (1) Short-term seminar projects of four to six weeks in length designed to increase the linguistic or cultural competency of U.S. students and educators by focusing on a particular aspect of area study, such as the culture of an area or country of study (34 CFR 664.11); (2) curriculum development projects of four to eight weeks in length that provide participants an opportunity to acquire resource materials for curriculum development in modern foreign language and area studies for use and dissemination in the United States (34 CFR 664.12); and (3) group research or study projects of three to twelve months in duration designed to give participants the opportunity to undertake research or study in a foreign country (34 CFR 664.13).
GPA long-term projects are advanced overseas intensive language projects that may be carried out during a full year, an academic year, a semester, a trimester, a quarter, or a summer. GPA long-term projects are designed to take advantage of the opportunities in the foreign country that are not present in the United States when providing intensive advanced foreign language training. Only participants who have successfully completed at least two academic years of training in the language to be studied are eligible for language training under this program. In addition, the language to be studied must be indigenous to the host country and maximum use must be made of local institutions and personnel (34 CFR 664.14).
Applicants may submit only one GPA short-term or GPA long-term application under this notice and must identify whether they are applying for a GPA short-term project or a GPA long-term project grant.
This priority is:
A group project that focuses on one or more of the following geographic regions of the world: Africa, East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia and the Pacific, the Western Hemisphere (Central and South America, Mexico, and the Caribbean), Eastern and Central Europe and Eurasia, and the Near East.
These priorities are:
Applications for GPA short-term projects from the following types of institutions and organizations:
Applications for GPA long-term advanced overseas intensive language training projects from MSIs.
Applications that propose GPA short-term projects or GPA long-term projects that provide substantive training and thematic focus on any modern foreign language except French, German, or Spanish.
Applications that propose short-term projects abroad that develop and improve foreign language studies, area studies, or both at elementary and secondary schools by including K-12 teachers or K-12 administrators as at least 50 percent of the project participants.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to IHEs only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2018 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
GPA short-term projects: $50,000-$100,000.
GPA long-term projects: $50,000-$250,000.
GPA short-term projects: $80,059.
GPA long-term projects: $185,025.
GPA short-term projects: 10.
GPA long-term projects: 15.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
GPA short-term projects: Up to 18 months.
GPA long-term projects: Up to 24 months.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger, or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended 40-page limit does not apply to Part I, the Application for Federal Assistance face sheet (SF 424); the supplemental information form required by the Department of Education; Part II, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524); Part IV, assurances, certifications, and the response to section 427 of the General Education Provisions Act; the table of contents; the one-page project abstract; the appendices; or the line-item budget. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative.
1.
(a)
(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information to determine the quality of the plan of operation for the project.
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—
(i) High quality in the design of the project;
(ii) An effective plan of management that insures proper and efficient administration of the project;
(iii) A clear description of how the objectives of the project relate to the purpose of the program;
(iv) The way the applicant plans to use its resources and personnel to achieve each objective; and
(v) A clear description of how the applicant will ensure that project participants who are otherwise eligible to participate are selected without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, age, or handicapping condition.
(b)
(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information to determine the quality of key personnel the applicant plans to use on the project.
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—
(i) The qualifications of the project director;
(ii) The qualifications of each of the other key personnel to be used in the project;
(iii) The time that each person referred to in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section will commit to the project; and
(iv) The extent to which the applicant, as part of its nondiscriminatory employment practices, will ensure that its personnel are selected for employment without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, age, or handicapping condition.
(3) To determine the qualifications of a person, the Secretary considers evidence of past experience and training in fields related to the objectives of the project as well as other information that the applicant provides.
(c)
(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows that the project has an adequate budget and is cost effective.
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—
(i) The budget for the project is adequate to support the project activities; and
(ii) Costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives of the project.
(d)
(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows the quality of the evaluation plan for the project.
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows that the methods of evaluation are appropriate for the project and, to the extent possible, are objective and produce data that are quantifiable.
(e)
(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows that the applicant plans to devote adequate resources to the project.
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows that the facilities, equipment, and supplies that the applicant plans to use are adequate.
(f) Potential impact of the project on the development of the study of modern foreign languages and area studies in American education. (15 points)
(g) The project's relevance to the applicant's educational goals and its relationship to its program development in modern foreign languages and area studies. (10 points)
(h) The extent to which direct experience abroad is necessary to achieve the project's objectives and the effectiveness with which relevant host country resources will be utilized. (10 points)
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
For FY 2018, GPA short-term project applications will be reviewed by separate panels according to world area. GPA long-term project applications will be reviewed by one panel. A rank order from the highest panel score to the lowest score will be developed for each of the two types of projects and will be used for funding purposes.
3.
4.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
5.
The information provided by grantees in their performance reports submitted via the International Resource Information System (IRIS) will be the source of data for this measure. Reporting screens for institutions can be viewed at:
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education is issuing a notice inviting applications for fiscal year (FY) 2018 for the Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) Fellowship program, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.022A.
The addresses pertinent to this DDRA competition—including the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application—can be found under
Dr. Pamela J. Maimer, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 258-24, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-6891. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
This priority is:
A research project that focuses on one or more of the following geographic areas: Africa, East Asia, Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands, South Asia, the Near East, Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia, and the Western Hemisphere (excluding the United States and its territories).
These priorities are:
Competitive Preference Priority 1—Focus on Less Commonly Taught Languages (2 points).
A research project that focuses on any modern foreign language except French, German, or Spanish.
A research project conducted in the field of science, technology, engineering, mathematics, computer science, education (comparative or international), international development, political science, public health, or economics.
Applicants that address Competitive Preference Priority 2 must intend to engage in full-time dissertation research abroad in modern foreign languages and area studies with a thematic focus on any one of the academic fields referenced above.
This priority is:
For purposes of this invitational priority, Minority-Serving Institution means an institution of higher education (IHE) that is eligible to receive assistance under part A of title III, under part B of title III, or under title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.
The open licensing requirement in 2 CFR 3474.20 does not apply for this program.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
You can contact ED Pubs at its website, also:
If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program as follows: CFDA number 84.022A.
2.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative and bibliography. However, student applicants may single space all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, titles, headings, footnotes, endnotes, quotations, bibliography, and captions.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to the Application for Federal Assistance face sheet (SF 424), the supplemental information form required by the Department of Education, or the assurances and certification. However, student applicants must include their complete responses to the selection criteria in the application narrative. The recommended page limits only apply to the application narrative and bibliography.
3.
Submit applications for grants under the program electronically using
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
4.
5.
6.
To do business with the Department of Education, you must—
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following website:
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN.
Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can submit an application through G5.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
7.
a.
Submit applications for grants under the Fulbright-Hays DDRA Fellowship Program, CFDA number 84.022A, electronically using the G5 system, accessible through the Department's G5 site at:
Please note the following:
• The process for submitting applications electronically under the Fulbright-Hays DDRA Fellowship Program has several parts. The following is a brief summary of the process; however, all applicants should review the detailed description of the application process in the application package. In summary, the major steps are:
(1) IHEs must email the name of the institution and the full name and email address of potential project director to
(2) Students must complete their individual applications and submit them to their IHE's project director using G5;
(3) Persons providing references for individual students must complete and submit reference forms for the students and submit them to the IHE's project director using G5; and
(4) The IHE's project director must officially submit the IHE's application, including all eligible individual student applications, reference forms, and other required forms, using G5.
• The IHE must complete the electronic submission of the grant application by 4:30:00 p.m., Eastern Time, on the application deadline date. G5 will not accept an application for this competition after 4:30:00 p.m., Eastern Time, on the application deadline date. Therefore, we strongly recommend that both the IHE and the student applicant not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application process.
• The hours of operation of the G5 website are 6:00 a.m. Monday until 9:00 p.m., Wednesday; and 6:00 a.m. Thursday until 3:00 p.m., Sunday, Eastern Time. Please note that, because of maintenance, the system is unavailable between 3:00 p.m. on Sundays and 6:00 a.m. on Mondays, and between 9:00 p.m. on Wednesdays and 6:00 a.m. on Thursdays, Eastern Time. Any modifications to these hours are posted on the G5 website.
• Student applicants will not receive additional point value because the student submits his or her application in electronic format, nor will we penalize the IHE or student applicant if the applicant qualifies for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submits an application in paper format.
• IHEs must submit all documents electronically, including all information typically provided on the following forms: the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• Both IHEs and student applicants must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to their application as files in a read-only flattened Portable Document Format (PDF), meaning any fillable documents must be saved and submitted as non-fillable PDF files. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF (
• Submit student transcripts electronically through the G5 system.
• Prior to submitting your electronic application, you may wish to print a copy of it for your records.
• After the individual student applicant electronically submits his or her application to the student's IHE, the student will receive an automatic acknowledgment. After a person submits a reference electronically, he or she will receive an online confirmation. After the applicant IHE submits its application, including all eligible individual student applications, to the Department, the applicant IHE will receive an automatic acknowledgment that will include a unique PR/Award number for the IHE's application.
• Within three working days after submitting its electronic application the applicant IHE must—
(1) Print SF 424 from G5;
(2) The applicant IHE's Authorizing Representative must sign this form;
(3) Place the PR/Award number in the upper right-hand corner of the hard-copy signature page of the SF 424; and
(4) Fax the signed SF 424 to the Application Control Center at (202) 245-6272.
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on other forms at a later date.
(1) The IHE is a registered user of the G5 system and the IHE has initiated an electronic application for this competition; and
(2) (a) G5 is unavailable for 60 minutes or more between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Eastern Time, on the application deadline date; or
(b) G5 is unavailable for any period of time between 3:30 p.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Eastern Time, on the application deadline date.
We must acknowledge and confirm these periods of unavailability before granting the IHE an extension. To request this extension or to confirm our acknowledgment of any system unavailability, an IHE may contact
b.
We discourage paper applications, but if electronic submission is not possible (
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. Please send this statement to a person listed in the
If you submit a paper application, you must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.022A), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The IHE must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If the IHE mails its application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, the IHE should check with its local post office.
We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.
c.
(1) The IHE must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which the IHE is submitting its application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail a notification of receipt of the IHE's grant application. If the IHE does not receive this grant notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, the IHE should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
(a)
(1) The statement of the major hypotheses to be tested or questions to be examined, and the description and justification of the research methods to be used;
(2) The relationship of the research to the literature on the topic and to major theoretical issues in the field, and the project's originality and importance in terms of the concerns of the discipline;
(3) The preliminary research already completed in the United States and overseas or plans for such research prior to going overseas, and the kinds, quality and availability of data for the research in the host country or countries;
(4) The justification for overseas field research and preparations to establish appropriate and sufficient research contacts and affiliations abroad;
(5) The applicant's plans to share the results of the research in progress and a copy of the dissertation with scholars and officials of the host country or countries; and
(6) The guidance and supervision of the dissertation advisor or committee at all stages of the project, including guidance in developing the project, understanding research conditions abroad, and acquainting the applicant with research in the field.
(b)
(1) The overall strength of the applicant's graduate academic record;
(2) The extent to which the applicant's academic record demonstrates strength in area studies relevant to the proposed project;
(3) The applicant's proficiency in one or more of the languages (other than English and the applicant's native language) of the country or countries of research, and the specific measures to be taken to overcome any anticipated language barriers; and
(4) The applicant's ability to conduct research in a foreign cultural context, as evidenced by the applicant's references or previous overseas experience, or both.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
For FY 2018, student applications will be divided into seven categories based on the world area focus of their research projects, as described in the absolute priority. Language and area studies experts in discrete world area-based panels will review the student applications. Each panel will review, score, and rank its applications separately from the applications assigned to the other world area panels. However, all fellowship applications will be ranked together from the highest to lowest score for funding purposes.
3.
4.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
1.
If a student application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify the IHE.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. Grantees are required to use the electronic data instrument
4.
The Department will use the following measures to evaluate its success in meeting this objective:
DDRA GPRA Measure 1: The percentage of DDRA fellows who increased their foreign language scores in speaking, reading, or writing by at least one proficiency level.
DDRA GPRA Measure 2: The percentage of DDRA fellows who complete their degree in their program of study within four years of receipt of the fellowship.
DDRA GPRA Measure 3: The percentage of DDRA fellows who found employment that utilized their language and area studies skills within eight years of receiving their award.
DDRA GPRA Measure 4: Efficiency Measure—The cost per DDRA fellow who found employment that utilized their language and area studies skills within eight years.
The information provided by grantees in their performance report submitted via IRIS will be the source of data for this measure. Reporting screens for institutions and fellows may be viewed at:
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice and request for OMB review and comment.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted an information collection request to OMB for extension under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a three-year extension of its Labor Relations Report collection. The collection requests information from the Department of Energy Management and Operation (M&O) and Facilities Management Contractors for contract administration,
Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before July 16, 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, please advise the OMB Desk Officer of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at (202) 395-4650.
Written comments should be sent to: DOE Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. And to: John M. Sullivan, GC-63, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, or by fax at (202) 586-0971; or by email
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to: John M. Sullivan, Attorney-Advisor (Labor), GC-63, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, or by fax at (202) 586-0971 or by email to
This information collection request contains: (1)
42 U.S.C. 7254, 7256.
Office of Defense Programs, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy.
Notice of closed meeting.
This notice announces a closed meeting of the Defense Programs Advisory Committee (DPAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of meetings be announced in the
June 14-15, 2018 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20585.
Dana Hunter, Office of RDT&E (NA-11), National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 287-6287.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests, is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
1. On July 14, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) issued a decision,
2. The history of this case is recounted at length in earlier Commission orders.
3. As relevant here, in 2012, Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) and Progress Energy, Inc. (Progress) filed on behalf of Duke Energy Carolinas and CP&L a JDA that provided for the joint dispatch of Duke Energy Carolinas' and CP&L's respective generation facilities to serve their loads.
(ii) Neither [Duke Energy Carolinas] nor [CP&L] may make or incur a charge under this Agreement except in accordance with North Carolina law and the rules, regulations and orders of the [North Carolina Commission] promulgated thereunder;
(iii) Neither [Duke Energy Carolinas] nor [CP&L] may seek to reflect in its North Carolina retail rates (i) any costs incurred under this Agreement exceeding the amount allowed by the [North Carolina Commission] or (ii) any revenue level earned under the Agreement other than the amount imputed by the [North Carolina Commission]; and
(iv) Neither [Duke Energy Carolinas] nor [CP&L] will assert in any forum that the [North Carolina Commission's] authority to assign, allocate, make pro forma adjustments to or disallow revenues or costs for retail ratemaking and regulatory accounting and reporting purposes is preempted and [Duke Energy Carolinas] and [CP&L] will bear the full risk of any preemptive effects of federal law with respect to this Agreement.
JDA Order, 139 FERC 61,193 at P 23.
4. Orangeburg requested rehearing, which the Commission denied in the JDA Rehearing Order.
5. In
6. We establish a briefing schedule to allow the parties and other interested persons to address the two issues noted below that the D.C. Circuit raised in its decision. Further briefing on these issues will help develop a better record for the Commission to respond to the court's directive to reconsider these issues.
7. We request briefing on the following issues, in particular:
(a) Is the JDA's disparate treatment of native and non-native load wholesale customers unduly discriminatory or preferential? In answering this question, please address the following:
(i) Explain why the JDA treats native and non-native load wholesale customers disparately and whether the differences between these customers justify the disparate treatment.
(ii) Specify in detail the contractual provisions in current or future wholesale contracts that would qualify a wholesale customer for native load treatment under the JDA,
(iii) Explain why wholesale sales between Duke Energy Carolinas and CP&L are excluded from the definition of non-native load sales and how the JDA would treat such a sale between the utilities.
(b) Do the North Carolina Commission's regulatory conditions
8. We require Duke Energy Carolinas and CP&L to submit—and others may submit—initial briefs on or before 45 days from the date of this order. Reply briefs must be submitted on or before 30 days following the due date of the initial briefs. Any person who is not currently a party to the proceeding and who wishes to submit a brief must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate.
(A) Duke Energy Carolinas and CP&L are required to submit, and other parties are hereby permitted to submit initial briefs on or before forty-five (45) days of the date of this order, as discussed in the body of this order.
(B) Parties are hereby permitted to file reply briefs on or before thirty (30) days of the date of filing of initial briefs.
(C) All interested persons who wish to submit briefs but that are not currently parties to Docket Nos. ER12-1338-003 or ER12-1347-004 may submit notices of intervention or motions to intervene, as appropriate, within 21 days of the date of this order. The briefing schedule described in Ordering Paragraphs (A) and (B) will apply to such persons.
(D) The Secretary is hereby directed to publish this order in the
By the Commission.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Notice of revised information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comments on revisions to the information collection, FERC-725G (Reliability Standards for the Bulk Power System: PRC Reliability Standards) in Docket No. RD18-4-000 and will be submitting FERC-725G to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements.
Comments on the collection of information are due July 16, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. RD18-4-000 by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
On March 16, 2018, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC, the Commission-approved ERO) submitted for Commission approval proposed Reliability Standard PRC-025-2, Generator Relay Loadability. The PRC-025-2 Reliability Standard addresses setting load-responsive protective relays associated with generation facilities at a level to prevent unnecessary tripping of generators during a system disturbance for conditions that do not pose a risk of damage to the associated equipment. Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-025-2 improves upon currently-effective Reliability Standard PRC-025-1 by addressing certain relay setting application issues and by clarifying certain terminology and references. NERC requested that the Commission approve the proposed Reliability Standard and find that the proposed standard is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. NERC also requested that the Commission approve: (i) The associated Implementation Plan; (ii) the associated Violation Risk Factors (VRFs) and Violation Severity Levels (VSLs), which remain unchanged from PRC-025-1; and (iii) the retirement of currently-effective Reliability Standard PRC-025-1.
NERC proposed that PRC-025-2 shall become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter after the effective date of the applicable governmental authority's order approving the standard. NERC's Implementation Plan proposed phased-in compliance dates after the effective date of Reliability Standard PRC-025-2.
On May 2, 2018, the Commission approved Reliability Standard PRC-025-2 and the retirement of PRC-025-1.
Take notice that on May 2, 2018, UGI Central Penn Gas, Inc. (CPG), and UGI Utilities, Inc. (UGIU) (collectively, Applicants), both wholly-owned direct subsidiaries of UGI Corporation and both currently located at 2525 N. 12th Street, Reading, Pennsylvania 19605, filed in Docket No. CP18-477-000 an application pursuant to sections 7(b) and 7(f) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations. Specifically, the Applicants request: (i) Authority to abandon certain limited jurisdiction certificates for transportation services held by CPG pertaining to its Maryland local gas distribution system located in Maryland and Pennsylvania; and (ii) for transfer of CPG's service area determination to UGIU. The Applicants state that the requested authorizations are required to implement aspects of the pending transfer of the local natural gas distribution assets from CPG into UGIU pursuant to a corporate merger, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Frank Merkle, Senior Counsel, UGI Corporation, Box 858, Valley Forge, Pennsylvania 19482; or by email at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit five copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the information collections, FERC-65 (Notice of Holding Company Status), FERC-65A (Exemption Notification of holding Company Status), and FERC-65B (Waiver Notification of Holding Company Status), and FERC-725V (Mandatory Reliability Standards: COM Reliability Standards) which will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a review of the information collection requirements.
Comments on the collection of information are due June 15, 2018.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by OMB Control No. 1902-0218 and OMB Control No. 1902-0277, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. IC18-6-000 by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
The FERC-65 is a one-time informational filing outlined in the Commission's regulations at 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 366.4. The FERC-65 must be submitted within 30 days of becoming a holding company.
While noting the previously outlined requirements of the FERC-65, the Commission has allowed for an exemption from the requirement of providing the Commission with a FERC-65 if the books, accounts, memoranda, and other records of any person are not relevant to the jurisdictional rates of a public utility or natural gas company; or if any class of transactions is not relevant to the jurisdictional rates of a public utility or natural gas company. Persons seeking this exemption file the FERC-65A, which must include a form of notice suitable for publication in the
If an entity meets the requirements in 18 CFR 366.3(c), they may file a FERC-65B waiver notification pursuant to the procedures outlined in 18 CFR 366.4. Specifically, the Commission waives the requirement of providing it with a FERC-65 for any holding company with respect to one or more of the following: (1) Single-state holding company systems; (2) holding companies that own generating facilities that total 100 MW or less in size and are used fundamentally for their own load or for sales to affiliated end-users; or (3) investors in independent transmission-only companies. Filings may be made in hardcopy or electronically through the Commission's website.
Reliability Standards COM-001-2 and COM-002-4 do not require responsible entities to file information with the Commission. COM-001-2 requires that transmission operators, balancing authorities, reliability coordinators, distribution providers, and generator operators must maintain documentation of Interpersonal Communication capability and designation of Alternate Interpersonal Communication, as well as evidence of testing of the Alternate Interpersonal Communication facilities. COM-002-4 requires balancing authorities, distribution providers, reliability coordinators, transmission operators, and generator operators to develop and maintain documented communication protocols, and to be able to provide evidence of training on the protocols and of their annual assessment of the protocols. Additionally, all applicable entities (balancing authorities, reliability coordinators, transmission operators, generator operators, and distribution providers) must be able to provide evidence of three-part communication when issuing or receiving an Operating Instruction during an Emergency.
Electrical Engineer (Occupation Code: 17-2071): $68.12 (review and documentation).
Office and Administrative Support (Occupation Code: 43-0000): $40.89 ($68.12 + 40.89 = 109.01 ÷ 3 = $36.34. This figure is rounded to $36.00 for use in collection FERC-725V for calculating wage figures in this renewal calculation.
Take notice that on April 30, 2018, Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. (Southern Star), 4700 Highway 56, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301, filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208, 157.210, 157.211, and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Southern Star's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-479-000, for authorization to construct, own, and operate a total of approximately 14.27 miles in seven non-contiguous 20- and 24-inch-diameter pipeline segments, and subsequently to abandon the equivalent existing segments of Line V in Oklahoma and Logan Counties, Oklahoma (Line V Replacement Project). The replacement is required due to the age and condition of the acetylene-welded pipe and to enable in-line assessments of the Line V pipeline, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions concerning this prior notice request should be directed to Cindy Thompson, Manager, Regulatory, Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., 4700 Highway 56, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301, by phone (270) 852-4655, or by email
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's website (
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability.
This notice announces applicability determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations that EPA has made with regard to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); the Emission Guidelines and Federal Plan Requirements for existing sources; and/or the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program.
An electronic copy of each complete document posted on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) data system is available on the internet through the Resources and Guidance Documents for Compliance Assistance page of the Clean Air Act Compliance Monitoring website under “Air” at:
The General Provisions of the NSPS in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 60 and the General Provisions of the NESHAP in 40 CFR part 61 provide that a source owner or operator may request a determination of whether certain intended actions constitute the commencement of construction, reconstruction, or modification. 40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. The General Provisions in part 60 also apply to Federal and EPA-approved state plans for existing sources in 40 CFR part 62. See 40 CFR 62.02(b)(2). The EPA's written responses to inquiries on provisions in parts 60, 61 and 62 are commonly referred to as applicability determinations. Although the NESHAP part 63 regulations [which include Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards and/or Generally Available Control Technology (GACT) standards] contain no specific regulatory provision providing that sources may request applicability determinations, the EPA also responds to written inquiries regarding applicability for the part 63 regulations. In addition, the General Provisions in part 60 and 63 allow sources to seek permission to use monitoring or recordkeeping that is different from the promulgated requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f). The EPA's written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as alternative monitoring decisions. Furthermore, the EPA responds to written inquiries about the broad range of regulatory requirements in 40 CFR parts 60 through 63 as they pertain to a whole source category. These inquiries may pertain, for example, to the type of sources to which the regulation applies, or to the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting requirements contained in the regulation. The EPA's written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as regulatory interpretations.
The EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations, and posts them to the ADI on a regular basis. In addition, the ADI contains EPA-issued responses to requests pursuant to the stratospheric ozone regulations, contained in 40 CFR part 82. The ADI is a data system on the internet with over three thousand EPA letters and memoranda pertaining to the applicability, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the NSPS, NESHAP, emission guidelines and Federal Plans for existing sources, and stratospheric ozone regulations. Users can search for letters and memoranda by date, office of issuance, subpart, citation, control number, or by string word searches.
Today's notice comprises a summary of 54 such documents added to the ADI on April 24, 2018. This notice lists the subject and header of each letter and memorandum, as well as a brief abstract of the letter or memorandum. Complete copies of these documents may be obtained from the ADI on the internet through the Resources and Guidance Documents for Compliance Assistance page of the Clean Air Act Compliance Monitoring website under “Air” at:
The following table identifies the database control number for each document posted on the ADI data system on April 24, 2018; the applicable category; the section(s) and/or subpart(s) of 40 CFR part 60, 61, 62, or 63 (as applicable) addressed in the document; and the title of the document, which provides a brief description of the subject matter.
Also included is an abstract of each document identified with its control number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely to alert the public to possible items of interest and are not intended as substitutes for the contents of the documents. This notice does not change the status of any document with respect to whether it is “of nationwide scope or effect” for purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1). For example, this notice does not convert an applicability determination for a particular source into a nationwide rule. Neither does it purport to make a previously non-binding document binding.
Q: Did construction commence on the Portland General Electric (PGE) Carty Generating Facility electric generating unit (EGU) located in Boardman, Oregon when the turn-key contract for construction of the Facility was signed, or later when the contractor began actual onsite construction activities?
A: Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.5(a) and 40 CFR 60.2 definition of “commence”, EPA determines that PGE's construction commenced on June 3, 2013, when PGE entered into a contractual obligation construction of the Carty Generating Facility.
Q1: Does the EPA approve Lynn Water and Sewer Commission's (Lynn's) request to use site-specific control technology and monitoring parameters for the granular activated carbon adsorption system used to control mercury emissions from the sewage sludge incinerator (SSI), subject to the 40 CFR part, subpart MMMM, Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Timelines for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration (SSI) Units, and located in Lynn, Massachusetts? The SSI is expected to be subject to the federal standards to be promulgated under 40 CFR part 62 subpart LLL, Federal Plan Requirements for Sewage Sludge Incineration Units Constructed on or Before October 14, 2010.
A1: Yes. The EPA approves Lynn's site-specific mercury emission control and monitoring plan for the carbon adsorber. SSIs located in states that did not develop plans by March 21, 2016, as required by subpart MMMM, will be subject to the Federal plan requirements of Subpart LLL, until such time as the state develops a plan that is approved by EPA. Moreover, the Clean Air Act at 42 U.S.C. 7429(f)(2) states that performance standards for existing SSIs shall be in effect no later than five years after the date the emission guidelines were promulgated, that is by March 21, 2016.
Q2: Does the EPA approve Lynn's request for an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for the wet electrostatic precipitator (WESP) used to control particulate from the incinerator?
A2: Yes. The EPA approves Lynn's request for an AMP for the WESP.
Q: Does the EPA approve the alternative testing under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW (the Landfill NSPS) to allow use of landfill gas flow rate measurements at the header of the voluntary gas collection and control system (GCCS) to calculate annual non-methane organic compound (NMOC) emissions for a Tier 2 test at the Central Sanitary Landfill (CSL) in Pierson, Michigan?
A: No. The EPA does not approve the alternative testing to use the flow rate measurements from the header of the GCCS, unless CSL can verify that the flow rate measured in the header of the GCCS accounts for the total quantity of landfill gas generated by the landfill.
Q: Does the EPA determine that the two carbon disulfide (CS2) storage tanks located at the 3M Company (3M) Elyria, Ohio manufacturing plant are regulated under 40 CFR part 60 subpart Kb, Standards of Performance in Volatile Organic Liquid for Storage Vessels (NSPS Kb)? The CS2 storage tanks in question are part of an unloading and storage operation regulated under 40 CFR part 63 subpart UUUU (MACT UUUU), NESHAP for Cellulose Products Manufacturing, and the tanks do not have gaseous emissions.
A: No. The EPA determines that the storage tanks in question that store CS2, a volatile organic liquid, are not regulated under NSPS Kb based on the language in Section VI.G.2 of the EPA memorandum from William Schrock, OAQPS/ESD/OCG to Docket No. A-99-39, Summary of Public Comments and Responses on the Proposed NESHAP for Cellulosic Products Manufacturing, dated February 15, 2002. The two CS2 storage tanks are not the type of storage vessels in terms of their physical siting and operational design that were intended to be regulated under NSPS Subpart Kb, even when these tanks meet the vapor pressure and designed capacity under the NSPS rule. The tanks in question are completely submerged in a common water bath and have no air space within the tanks due to having a water layer above the CS2 layer at all times. Therefore, the tanks do not have direct CS2 gaseous emissions.
Q: Does the EPA determine that changes made to the OMD-1 Rail rack flare, located at the Suncor Energy, Inc. petroleum refinery in Commerce City, Colorado, to ensure compliance with 40 CFR part 63 subpart CC, NESHAP from Petroleum Refineries, are considered a modification under 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja?
A: No. Based on the information provided, the addition of utility supplied natural gas to the OMD-1 Rail rack flare would not be considered a modification for subpart Ja purposes because this flare is not physically connecting any new piping from a “refinery process unit”, including “ancillary equipment,” or a “fuel gas system” as those terms are defined in Subpart Ja. Rather, the new piping is adding utility supplied natural gas to vapors from loading racks, Also, the addition of utility supplied natural gas to the OMD-1 Rail rack flare is not increasing the flow capacity of the flare.
Q: Does the EPA determine that 40 CFR part 60 subpart MMMM—Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Timelines for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration (SSI) Units (SSI EG Rule) applies to a sewage sludge gasifier owned by MaxWest Environmental Systems Inc. (MaxWest) and located in Sanford, Florida?
A: No. EPA determines that the SSI EG Rule, does not apply to the Maxwest sewage sludge gasifier and thermal oxidizer process heater. According to the SSI EG Rule, an SSI unit is an “enclosed device or devices using controlled flame combustion that burns sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing the volume of sewage sludge by removing combustible matter.” The MaxWest system has no flame and it is not a sewage sludge incinerator. Next, while the syngas which results from the gasifier is combusted, the SSI EG rule defines sewage sludge as “solid, semisolid, or liquid residue generated during the treatment of domestic sludge in treatment works.” Since the syngas is a gas and not a solid, semisolid, or liquid, it does not meet the definition of sewage sludge in the SSI EG rule (even
Q: Does the EPA approve an alternate Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA) frequency for two carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) on two turbines located at the Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AECI) Dell Power Plant in Dell, Arkansas?
A: Yes. The EPA approves AECI's request to follow the part 75 RATA frequency requirements for both NOx and CO CEMS, in accordance with similar prior approvals allowing a reduction in RATA frequency requirements for NOx and CO CEMS under part 60 Appendix F. The AECI turbines operate infrequently, and part 60 RATA frequency requirements do not take into account the frequency of the unit operations.
Q: Is the proposed pilot gasification unit at the Carbon Black Global LLC (CBG) facility in Dunlap, Tennessee subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart CCCC (Standards of Performance for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI NSPS)? The pilot “scaled-down” unit will be used to optimize and research the gasification of a variety of carbon-based waste feedstocks for clients. The resultant syngas will be flared.
A: No. The proposed CBG's operation of the pilot unit is not a CISWI unit as defined in § 60.2265 and is therefore not subject to the CISWI NSPS because the resultant syngas will not be in a container when combusted in the flare. While operation of the pilot unit by CBG is not subject to the CISWI NSPS, combustion of syngas produced by the gasification of other wastes, by CBG clients, should be evaluated by the appropriate delegated permitting agency for potential applicability under section 129 or section 112 (in the case of hazardous waste rules).
Q1: Does the EPA give permission to remove the Site No. 1, Site No. 2, Fons and Old Wayne landfills' (the Landfills) landfill gas (LFG) gas collection and control system (GCCS) at a Wayne Disposal Inc. (WDI) site in Belleville, Michigan that is subject to the Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Federal Plan at 40 CFR part 62 subpart GGG (Landfill Federal Plan)?
A1: Yes. The EPA grants permission for WDI to cap or remove its LFG GCCS from a specific cell to allow a new hazardous waste landfill cell to overlay it since it has met the approval criteria established at 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(v), including: (1) The Landfills are “a closed landfill[s]; (2) demonstrated that the NMOC gas production rate is less than 50 Mg/yr; and (3) demonstrated that the GCCS has been in operation for at least 15 years, as well as the required removal report is described in 40 CFR 60.757(e). Details behind this decision are included in the EPA determination letter.
Q2: Can a landfill cap and remove its GCCS prior to the 15-year control period if a GCCS was operational prior to the start of the 15-year control period, but not in compliance with the Landfill NSPS and the Landfill Federal Plan design criteria?
A2: No. WDI may cap or remove its GCCS at the remaining Landfills after October 6, 2017, since all conditions per 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(v) for landfill closure will be met on that date. A landfill is required to do a performance test when a GCCS is installed to ensure that it is in compliance with the Landfill Federal Plan or Landfill NSPS, whichever is applicable, which is one of the criteria. Once the GCCS is determined to be in compliance with design criteria in the Landfill NSPS and the Federal plan, the 15-year control period begins. Based on the information provided, WDI has not yet satisfied the 15-year requirement and must maintain operation of the GCCS until October 6, 2017.
Q1: Does the EPA determine that the purchase order for a flare at the Linde Gas North America hydrogen reformer facility, located in Romeoville, Illinois, signed prior to the applicability deadline for 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, establish that the facility “commenced construction” of the flare?
A1: Yes. The signed purchase order established a contractual obligation to construct the flare and therefore the facility had commenced construction prior to the subpart J applicability deadline.
Q2: Does the EPA determine that gas streams routed to the flare for combustion are exempt from the hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emission limit at 40 CFR 60.104(a)(1) if the streams result from startup, shutdown, upset or malfunction of the plant or are due to relief valve leakage or other emergency malfunctions?
A2: Yes. Process upset gases and gases released as a result of relief valve leakage or other emergency malfunctions are exempt from this H2S emission limit.
Q3: Does the EPA determine that the flare is exempt from the sulfur dioxide (SO
A3: Yes. Based on the information provided to the EPA about the gas streams directed to the flare, they are inherently low in sulfur and therefore the facility is exempt from the SO
Q: Does the EPA determine that well completions performed by CountryMark Energy Resources, LLC (CountryMark) meet the definition of hydraulic fracturing at 40 CFR 60.5430a and are subject to subpart OOOOa?
A: Yes. The EPA determines that CountryMark's operations meet the definition of hydraulic fracturing at 40 CFR 60.5430a, and are therefore subject to applicable requirements of subpart OOOOa, including but not limited to the standards for well affected facilities at 40 CFR 60.5375a. EPA concludes that the formations within the Illinois Basin that CountryMark has identified are considered “tight formations” because it is necessary to inject pressurized fluids into the formations to “increase the flow of hydrocarbons to the wellhead”.
Q: Does EPA determine that water and fuel injection data associated with the startup and shutdown of a combustion turbine at the Marshfield Utilities electric power generation facility be included in the 4-hour rolling average calculation used to determine compliance with the nitrogen oxide (NOx) emission limitations for stationary combustion turbines and for reporting excess emissions under 40 CFR part 60 subpart KKKK?
A: Yes. Subpart KKKK requires that all unit operating hours, including periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction be included in the 4-hour rolling average steam or water to fuel ratio calculation in accordance with 40 CFR 60.4335(a) and 40 CFR 60.4375(a), and any excess emissions must be reported under 40 CFR 60.4380(a)(l). However, such excess emissions would not constitute a violation of subpart KKKK if they occurred as a result of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
Q: Does the EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) to monitor hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in refinery fuel gas during TRiSTAR/Global Vapor Control, Inc.'s (TRiSTAR) temporary vapor control events, such as
A: Yes. The EPA approves TRiSTAR's AMP at refineries in Region 5 since installing and operating an H2S CMS would be technically impractical due to the short term nature of tank degassing and similar operations.
Q: Does the EPA determine that sodium gluconate produced at the PMP Fermentation Products, Inc. facility in Peoria, Illinois is classified as a nonmetallic mineral under NSPS Subpart OOO?
A. Yes. The EPA determines that sodium gluconate meets the definition of nonmetallic mineral established in NSPS subpart OOO.
Q: Does the EPA approve an expansion of the previously approved Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for the Flint Hills Resources refinery to monitor hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and sulfur dioxide (SO
A: Yes. The EPA approves that the previously-approved AMP, to monitor H
Q: Does the EPA approve Calumet Superior's alternative monitoring proposal to use a static default moisture correction to correct the sulfur dioxide CEMS data to a dry basis, for a sulfur recovery plant located in Superior, Wisconsin, subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja?
A: No. NSPS subpart Ja at 40 CFR 60.l06a(a)(l) and the Performance Specification 2 of Appendix B to part 60 allow for the data to be monitored either on a dry basis, or to be corrected to a dry basis using continuously monitored moisture data.
Q: Does the EPA approve a request to reduce the concentrations of the calibration gas and validation standards on the continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) for several flares subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja at the Alon USA (Alon) Big Spring refinery located in Big Spring, Texas?
A: Yes. The EPA conditionally approves the request provided that all other requirements of the monitoring procedures of NSPS subpart Ja for total reduced sulfur (TRS) and hydrogen sulfide (H
Q: Does the EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for various refineries located in EPA Region 6 and operated by Debusk Service Group to conduct monitoring of hydrogen sulfide (H
A: Yes. Based on the description of the process, the vent gas streams, the design of the vent gas controls, and the H
Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for the two Flint Hills Resources Corpus Christi refineries (Flint Hills Refineries) to conduct monitoring of hydrogen sulfide (H
A: Yes. Based on the description of the process, the vent gas streams, the design of the vent gas controls, and the H
Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H
A: Yes. Based on the information provided by Magellan, the facility uses a vapor combustion unit (VCU) to control emissions from degassing, cleaning, and maintenance activities associated with tanks, vessels, pipes, and LPG trucks. Because the VCU will be used infrequently, and for short periods, installation of an H
Q: Does the EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for Flint Hill Resources in Rosemount, Minnesota, to monitor hydrogen sulfide (H
A: Yes. The EPA approves an AMP to monitor H
Q: Does the EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for GEM Mobile Treatment Services to monitor hydrogen sulfide (H
A: Yes. The EPA approves an AMP to monitor H
Q: Does the EPA approve Flint Hills Resources (FHR) to use a span of 0-50 ppmvd for the nitrogen oxides (NO
A: No. EPA disapproves the Alternative Monitoring Proposal to allow the analyzers spans of 0-50 ppmvd as this range does not cover the applicable emission limit of 60 ppmvd. However, the EPA conditionally approves a span of 0-60 ppmvd rather than the 120-180 ppmdv required by 40 CFR 60.107a(c)(1) for the NO
Q: Does the EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) to reduce the concentration of calibration gas used to perform daily validations and quarterly cylinder gas audits (CGA) of the Total Reduced Sulfur monitor for the flare gas system at the HollyFrontier El Dorado Refining LLC refinery (HFEDR) in El Dorado, Kansas, as required pursuant to 40 CFR 60.13(d) and 40 CFR 60, Appendix F, respectively?
A: Yes. The EPA conditionally approves the HFEDR AMP due to the safety concerns associated with handling gases with high concentrations of hydrogen disulfide (H
Q1: Does the EPA approve a waiver of the initial performance test for the Olefins Manufacturing Unit and Demethanizer Distillation Column Vents, at the Eastman Chemical Company, Longview, Texas facility, subject to 40 CFR part 60, Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry Distillation Operations (subpart NNN) and Reactor Processes (subpart RRR)?
A1: Yes. EPA waives the initial performance test for the specific vents associated with the two units, both subject to NSPS Subparts RRR and NNN, as these are being introduced with the primary fuel into a boiler or process heater in accordance with 40 CFR 60.8(b) and as provided for in § 60.704(b)(5) of subpart RRR. To ensure that affected vent streams are routed to appropriate control devices, subpart RRR requires that the facility maintain a schematic diagram of the affected vent streams, collection system(s), fuel systems, control devices, and bypass systems, and include the diagram in the initial report submitted in accordance with 40 CFR 60.705(b).
Q2: Does EPA approve a substitution of NSPS subpart NNN for NSPS subpart RRR as an alternative flow and temperature monitoring for the vent streams associated with two new demethanizer distillation columns?
A2: Yes. The EPA approves the alternative request for meeting subpart RRR in lieu of subpart NNN requirements for testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping for boilers and process heaters, part of the fuel gas system, to comply with the standards of both subparts.
Q: Does the EPA re-approve the May 2011 AMP to comply with new opacity requirements for a wet gas scrubbers (WGS) on the Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) at Motiva's Convent, Louisiana refinery, subject to NSPS subpart J and NESHAP subpart UUU, for continued parametric monitoring of opacity at the WGS in lieu of a Continuous Opacity Monitoring System?
A: Yes. Based on the previously established operating parameter limits for the scrubbers, the EPA agrees that the monitoring provisions of the previously approved AMP were at least as stringent as the new FCCUs requirements in both rules amended December 1, 2015, and therefore re-approves the AMP under the new rules.
Q1: Does the EPA find that the Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) to modify a flare's flow sensor measurement accuracy during extremely low flow conditions at the Valero Refining Company's Ardmore Refinery in Ardmore, Oklahoma, is still necessary if the flare is a control device subject to 40 CFR 60.107a(f)(1)(ii)?
A1: No. The EPA finds that the AMP is no longer necessary. The Final Rule for the Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review, issued December 1, 2015, amended 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja to address such conditions for flares equipped with water seals.
Q2: What does the revised rule now require?
A2: 40 CFR 60.107a(g) allows alternative monitoring with pressure sensors for flares that have flow meters which do not have measurement accuracies within ±20 percent over a velocity range of 0.1-1 feet per second (fps) flow rate, or ±5 percent for flow velocities exceeding 1 fps.
Q1: Does the EPA find that the Alternative Monitoring Plans (AMPs) to modify the flow sensor measurement accuracy of flares during extremely low flow conditions at the Valero Refining, Texas L.P.'s Corpus Christi West Plant and Corpus Christi East Plant Refineries in Corpus Christi, Texas, are still necessary if the flares are control devices subject to 40 CFR 60.107a(f)(1)(ii)?
A1: No. The EPA finds that the AMPs are no longer necessary. The Final Rule for the Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review, issued December 1, 2015, amended 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja to address such conditions for flares equipped with water seals.
Q2: What does the revised rule now require?
A2: 40 CFR 60.107a(g) allows alternative monitoring with pressure sensors for flares that have flow meters which do not have measurement accuracies within ±20 percent over a velocity range of 0.1-1 feet per second (fps) flow rate, or ±5 percent for flow velocities exceeding 1 fps.
Q1: Does the EPA find that the Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) to modify flow sensor measurement accuracy for multiple flares during extremely low flow conditions at the Valero Refining Company's Texas City Refinery in Texas City, Texas, is still necessary, if the flares are control devices subject to 40 CFR 60.107a(f)(1)(ii)?
A1: No. The EPA finds that the AMP is no longer necessary. The Final Rule for the Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review, issued December 1, 2015, amended 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja to address such conditions for flares equipped with water seals.
Q2: What does the revised rule now require?
A2: 40 CFR 60.107a(g) allows alternative monitoring with pressure sensors for flares that have flow meters which do not have measurement accuracies within ±20 percent over a velocity range of 0.1-1 feet per second (fps) flow rate, or ±5 percent for flow velocities exceeding 1 fps.
Q1: Does the EPA find that an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) to modify flow sensor measurement accuracy for multiple flares during extremely low flow conditions at Valero Refining Company's Three Rivers Refinery in Three Rivers, Texas, is still necessary if the flares are control devices subject to 40 CFR 60.107a(f)(1)(ii)?
A1: No. The EPA finds that the AMP is no longer necessary. The Final Rule for the Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review, issued December 1, 2015, amended 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja to address such conditions for flares equipped with water seals.
Q2: What does the revised rule now require?
A2: 40 CFR 60.107a(g) allows alternative monitoring with pressure sensors for flares that have flow meters which do not have measurement accuracies within ±20 percent over a velocity range of 0.1-1 feet per second (fps) flow rate, or ±5 percent for flow velocities exceeding 1 fps.
Q: Does the EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for determining sulfur dioxide (SO
A: Yes. The EPA conditionally approves Valero's AMP on the No. 3 SRU incinerator while the new dry basis SO
Q: Does the EPA approve WRB Refining LP's (WRB) Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and sulfur dioxide (SO
A: Yes. The EPA conditionally approves WRB's AMP request since it agrees that it is impractical to continuously monitor the H2S in and SO
Q: Does the EPA grant 3M's request to waive the initial performance testing requirements of 40 CFR part 60 subpart FFF, Standards of Performance for Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating and Printing (NSPS subpart FFF) for 3M's 3L and 6L lines at its Hutchinson, Minnesota facility, which are controlled by separate thermal oxidizers?
A: No. The EPA does not waive the initial performance testing requirements for 3M's 3L and 6L lines under NSPS subpart FFF for two reasons. First, the capture and destruction efficiency testing on which 3M wants the waiver to rely were not conducted at the same time. NSPS subpart FFF requires “a performance test to determine overall VOC control efficiency” which implies simultaneous testing of both capture efficiency and destruction efficiency at the same time to demonstrate compliance. Second, even if separate testing of capture and destruction efficiency was allowed by NSPS subpart FFF, the tests identified by 3M for demonstrating compliance were conducted years apart (3 and 10 years for the 3L and 6L lines, respectively). Such long time periods between testing cannot provide assurance that compliance was achieved, and cannot provide assurance that operational conditions during each test were identical.
Q: Is there a requirement that Wayne County treat vermiculite material containing less than one percent asbestos by Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) and/or Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) as regulated asbestos-containing material (RACM) under 40 CFR part 61 subpart M (Asbestos NESHAP)? The Wayne County Airport demolition of Building 715 involves suspect asbestos-containing material (ACM) consisting of spray-applied fireproofing on the primary roof structure that contains vermiculite.
A: The EPA recommends, but does not require, that the regulated community assume vermiculite material is asbestos-containing material (ACM) and treat it accordingly. However, if vermiculite material is present in building materials at a facility (as either friable or Category I or II nonfriable material that could become regulated), then the facility must be thoroughly inspected and any suspect vermiculite material must be sampled and analyzed like any other suspect asbestos-containing friable or nonfriable material unless it is assumed to be ACM and treated accordingly. Based on the site-specific test results provided by the Wayne County Airport, the spray-applied fire proofing tested at Building 715 is not ACM, and is not subject to the federal Asbestos NESHAP.
Q: Does the EPA determine that the Magna DexSys facility in Lansing, Michigan (Lansing facility) is a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) for purposes of applicability of the NESHAP for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products, at 40 CFR part 63 subpart PPPP?
A: Yes. Based upon the information provided, the EPA determines that Magna DexSys is a major source as defined under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and is, therefore, subject to the requirements of subpart PPPP. The Lansing facility's permitted xylene emission limits have always been, and are still, above the major source threshold. Furthermore, Magna DexSys lacks the data necessary to calculate uncontrolled HAP emissions at the facility, and there are no federally enforceable physical or operational limitations in place to limit emissions from the facility to less than 10 tons per year for a single HAP or 25 tons per year for any combination of HAP.
Q: Does the EPA determine that the vapor combustor in the Plant 2 loading
A: No. The EPA determines that the vapor combustor described in the March 10, 2017 letter does not meet the definition of a flare at 40 CFR 63.641 of subpart CC. Therefore, the vapor combustor is not subject to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.670 and 63.671. However, the combustor needs to be tested, and operating parameters established and monitored, to assure compliance with the subpart CC emission limits.
Q: Does the EPA determine that the glycol dehydration unit reboiler at El Paso Natural Gas' southern New Mexico facility, which is subject to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Natural Gas Transmission and Storage Facilities (NESHAP subpart HHH), is also subject to the NESHAP for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (NESHAP subpart DDDDD)?
A: Yes. The EPA determines that although the glycol dehydration reboiler is subject to NESHAP subpart HHH, the reboiler is also subject to NESHAP subpart DDDDD. The reboiler is considered a process heater subject to NESHAP subpart DDDDD because the gaseous fuel fired to the unit is not regulated under another subpart, and the exhaust gas from the reboiler combustion chamber is uncontrolled (
Q: Does EPA approve a request for an alternative relative accuracy (RA) procedure for three hazardous waste liquid fuel boilers at Vertellus Agriculture & Nutrition Specialties, LLC (Vertellus), in Indianapolis, Indiana, subject to 40 CFR part 266 subpart H (the Boilers and Industrial Furnaces Rule or BIF rule) and 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEE, the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Hazardous Waste Combustors (HWC MACT)?
A: Yes. EPA concludes that Vertellus may use the alternative RA procedure in the context of either the BIF Rule or the HWC MACT. The EPA previously approved the use of the alternative RA procedure in Appendix IX of 40 CFR part 266 for the hazardous waste liquid fuel boilers under the BIF rule at Vertellus. The EPA believes that the alternative RA procedures in Appendix A of the HWC MACT are acceptable procedures for a hazardous waste burning liquid fuel boiler.
Q: Does EPA approve the use of the `R Boiler' as an alternative control device to comply with the “emission rate with add-on controls” compliance option under 40 CFR part 63 subpart PPPP (the NESHAP for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products) for two plastic parts and products coating production lines at the SABIC Innovative Plastics Mt. Vernon, LLC (SABIC) facility in Mt. Vernon, Indiana?
A: Yes. Based on the information provided by SABIC, and the fact that SABIC intends to conduct a performance test to determine the organic HAP destruction efficiency of the `R Boiler', the EPA approves SABIC's request for this boiler to serve as an add-on control device under the NESHAP for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products since it is consistent with the subpart PPPP MACT requirements for demonstrating continuous compliance thermal oxidizer as a control device.
Q1: Does the EPA determine that Caterpillar Inc.'s (Caterpillar's) existing test cells/stands at its Lafayette facility are a reconstructed affected source under 40 CFR part 63 subpart PPPPP?
A1: No. EPA determines that many of the test cells/stands components that were added or replaced were not linked together by a single planning decision, and therefore cannot be aggregated together as a single project. The cost of Caterpillar's component replacements or component additions to the affected source that could conceivably be aggregated together are well below the 50% of the cost of constructing a new comparable facility.
Q2: Has the EPA further defined the terms “passive measurement and control limitations” as used in subpart PPPPP?
A2: The EPA has not provided further definition of these terms since promulgating the subpart PPPPP rule in 2003. However, the cost of passive measurement and control instrumentation and electronics is excluded from affected source reconstruction calculations as explained in 40 CFR 63.9290.
Q1: Does the EPA approve the use of either of the calibration options provided at 40 CFR 63.671(e)(2)(i) or (ii) under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Petroleum Refineries at 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC (NESHAP subpart CC) for its gas chromatograph (GC), if the current configuration of the GC does not allow it to identify 1,3 butadiene? The Calumet Superior, LLC. refinery plant in Superior, Wisconsin (Calumet) uses a gas chromatograph (GC) to monitor the flare vent gas composition to assess compliance with the operating limits in 40 CFR 63.670(e).
A1: No. 40 CFR 63.671(e)(2)(i) of NESHAP subpart CC is not an option because the current flare vent gas GC configuration does not allow it to identify 1,3 butadiene. Therefore, Calumet can only use the calibration option provided at 40 CFR 63.671(e)(2)(ii) since it allows the use of a surrogate calibration gas to cover all compounds in the flare vent gas stream.
Q2: Does the EPA determine that the current configuration of the flare vent GC that does not allow it to identify 1,3 butadiene meets the requirements of the NESHAP subpart CC to assess compliance with the operating limits in 40 CFR 63.670(e)? Calumet has collected and analyzed flare vent gas samples for 1,3 butadiene. The results of this sampling detected 1, 3 butadiene at concentrations levels below the threshold expected to have an impact on the net heating value of the flare vent gas in the combustion zone.
A2: Yes. Based on the information Calumet provided and pursuant to 40 CFR 63.670(j)(1) and 63.67l(e), the EPA determines that the current configuration of the flare vent gas GC meets the requirements of the NESHAP subpart CC.
Q: The Michigan South Central Power Agency's Endicott Generating Station (Endicott) has a source with an emergency scrubber bypass duct subject to the Mercury Air Toxics Standards (MATS) at 40 CFR part 63 subpart UUUUU. Is this source eligible to pursue Low Emitting electric utility steam generating unit (LEE) status for sulfur dioxide (S02) emissions in accordance with 40 CFR 63.10000?
A: Yes. In accordance with the technical corrections to MATS promulgated in April 2016, Endicott may pursue LEE status for its source. Pursuant to 40 CFR 63.10000(c)(1)(i)(C)(1), if a source's control device bypass emissions are measured in the bypass stack or duct or the source's control device bypass exhaust is routed through the electric utility steam generating unit main stack so that emissions are measured during the bypass event, then the source may pursue LEE status.
Q: Does the EPA determine that the replacement pump engines at the Lake Borgne Basin Levee District in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana are existing emergency stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) that are not subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ?
A: No. Based upon the information provided and the description of the engine use, the EPA determines that the engines at the Lake Borgne Pump Station do not meet the definition of existing emergency stationary RICE at 40 CFR 63.6675. Since construction or reconstruction of the stationary engines began after June 12, 2006, and the engines are located in an area source of emissions, the engines are subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart IIII (Compression Ignition NSPS).
Q: Does the EPA approve a waiver of the volumetric flow rate determination required as part of the performance test for a flare under 40 CFR part 63 subparts G and FFFF at the Lyondell Chemical (Lyondell) Bayport Choate Plant (Plant) in Pasadena, Texas?
A: Yes. The EPA conditionally approves a waiver of the requirement to determine the volumetric flow rate using EPA Method 2 during initial performance testing of a flare at the Plant. The volumetric flow rate can be calculated using existing flow measurement devices upstream of the flare and estimated flows based on process knowledge from all minor streams that may be routed to the flare on an interim basis. Lyondell must install flow meters for the flare and must demonstrate compliance with flare exit velocity requirements using the approved process-based engineering calculation protocol for volumetric flow rate.
Q: Does EPA approve site specific fuel analysis plans to be conducted in accordance with approved EPA Method 30 at Union Carbide Corporation's Hahnville, Louisiana facility, for the purpose of determining mercury levels to classify boiler and heater fuel sources as Other Gas 1 or 2 under 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD?
A: Yes. Based on the information submitted, the EPA approves the fuel analysis plans.
Q: Does the EPA approve SABIC Innovative Plastics' (SABIC's) request to replace EPA Method 30B mercury analysis breakthrough Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) requirements with Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA) criteria and/or waive the breakthrough QA/QC for a test conducted in April 2016, for the purposes of complying with 40 CFR part 60 subpart DDDDD?
A: No. The EPA does not approve SABIC's request. There are substantive reasons why the criteria are different for compliance testing versus RATA testing. The EPA does find however, that while the breakthrough criterion was not met in several instances during the tests, it appears that the remaining data quality objectives were met and there is no reason to reject the QA/QC data.
Q: Does the EPA approve Calumet Superior, LLC's (Calumet's) alternative monitoring request to maintain the hourly oxygen concentration in the exhaust gas from the catalyst regenerator at or above one percent by volume on a wet basis, as opposed to a dry basis as required by 40 CFR 63 subpart UUU at the Superior, Wisconsin refinery?
A: Yes. The EPA approves Calumets' alternative monitoring request for use of wet basis analyzer readings to demonstrate compliance with the one percent by volume oxygen concentration limit in 40 CFR 63.1565(a)(5)(ii) for periods of startup, shutdown, and hot standby. Calumet provided information that indicates catalyst fines can plug an analyzer that measures on a dry basis. In addition, the oxygen concentration on a wet basis will always yield a lower reading versus a dry basis oxygen reading.
Q1: Are Processes 1, referred to as “adhesive compounding”, located at the 3M's Hutchinson, Minnesota (“Hutchinson”) and Knoxville, Iowa (“Knoxville”) facilities subject to the 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing (MON rule) or 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH, the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing (MCM rule) at MCM when the adhesive compound is shipped off-site?
A1: The MON rule applies to Processes 1 when the adhesive compound is shipped off-site. The MCM does not apply to Process 1 when the adhesive compound is shipped off-site. Process 1 is a miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process that produces an adhesive product classified by NAICS 325, and process or uses organic HAP, and is therefore a process that is contemplated by 63.2435(b).
Q2: Are Processes 2, referred to as “mogul based adhesive compounding”, located at the 3M's Hutchinson and Knoxville facilities subject to the MON or the MCM when the mogul based adhesive compound is shipped off-site?
A2: The MON applies to Processes 2 when the mogul based adhesive compound is shipped off-site. The MCM does not apply to Processes 2 when the mogul based adhesive compound is shipped off-site. 3M described the first step which involves a chemical reaction of non-HAP containing raw materials. The first step is completed by quenching the reaction, without storage after the first step. The second step, HAP containing raw materials were added to the same vessel with the material from the first step. Because there is no storage after step 1, we believe that both steps of Process 2 are part of one miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process to produce a product described by NAICS 325.
Q3: Are Processes 1 and 2 located at the 3M's Hutchinson and Knoxville facilities exempt from the MON as “affiliated operations” when making the adhesive compound and mogul based adhesive compound, respectively, at the same facility that is subject to Subpart JJJJ (POWC)?
A3: Yes. Processes 1 and 2 meet the exemption for affiliated operations under the MON when making the adhesive and mogul based adhesive, respectively, at the same facility where they are used in a POWC affected facility. The definitions of affiliated operations in both the MON and the preamble to the POWC contain the broad language to define the exemption. Therefore, we interpret these broad terms to include the actual production of the product that meets the definition of “coating” under the rule.
Q: Blaze King Industries Incorporated is seeking EPA clarification on the steps for adequately demonstrating replacement catalyst equivalency for catalyst-equipped wood heaters subject to the 2015 Standards of Performance
A: The 2015 NSPS standards requires that, to have a catalyst deemed suitable for replacement, equivalency testing be conducted by an EPA-approved test laboratory. Consistent with the 2015 Standards, the manufacturer must notify the EPA of the date that certification testing (catalyst equivalency testing) is scheduled to begin as stated in 40 CFR 60.534(g). This notice must be received by the EPA at least 30 days before the start of testing.
This letter is in response to the three November 20, 2015 letters (which the EPA is consolidating into one response) from OMNI-Test Laboratories, Inc. (OMNI) requesting clarification of several issues under 2015 Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters (subpart AAA) and New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces (subpart QQQQ) (collectively referred to as the “2015 NSPS Standards”)
Q1: Do the 2015 NSPS Standards allow unsealing of a wood heater, for which a full certification test series has not been completed, for further testing?
A1: The 2015 NSPS Standards do not specifically allow for unsealing of a wood heater for which a test laboratory has suspended a compliance test. However, EPA interprets some sections of the 2015 NSPS Standards to allow the unsealing of a wood heater for the purpose of further testing in specific circumstances.
Q2: Can the manufacturer provide new parts or make simple modifications to the sealed wood heater in lieu of making and shipping a new prototype?
A2: Yes. However, the wood heater must remain sealed until the operation and test data obtained from the suspended test is submitted and reviewed by the EPA.
Q3: Does a wood heater that has undergone an incomplete test certification have to be sealed and archived in perpetuity?
A3: No. However, when the wood heater is sealed per 40 CFR 60.535(a)(2)(vii) and 60.5477(a)(2)(vii), the wood heater must remain sealed until the operation and test data obtained from the suspended test is submitted and reviewed by the EPA.
Q4: What are the certification requirements under 40 CFR 60.533(e)?
A4: As provided in 40 CFR 60.533(e), the EPA may issue a conditional, temporary certificate of compliance to a manufacturer if they submit a full test report and a complete application.
Q5: Are the certifications of conformity that an EPA-accredited test laboratory submits to the EPA “de facto temporary certificates of compliance” because they are not required for the EPA to issue a temporary certificate of compliance to a manufacturer?
A5: No. As provided in 40 CFR 60.533(e), a conditional, temporary certificate of compliance may only be granted by the EPA provided that the manufacturer submits a complete certification application that meets all the requirements in 40 CFR 60.533(b).
Q6: Does submission of a certificate of conformity with a complete certification package (
A6: No. The manufacturer may receive a conditional, temporary certificate of compliance under 40 CFR 60.533(e) until the EPA's review of the application is complete.
Q7: What are the requirements for quality assurance audits for model lines that are deemed certified under 40 CFR 60.533(h)(1)?
A7: As provided in 40 CFR 60.533(m), “the manufacturer of a model line with a compliance certification under paragraph (h)(1) of this section must conduct a quality assurance program that satisfies the requirements of this paragraph (m) by May 16, 2016.”
Q8: Are manufacturers required to contract the services of a third-party certifier to conduct quality assurance audits?
A8: Yes. Manufacturers are required by 40 CFR 60.533(m) to contract the services of a third-party certifier to conduct quality assurance audits.
Q9: What are the requirements for deemed certified wood heaters under 40 CFR 60.533(m)?
A9: As provided in 40 CFR 60.533(m), by May 16, 2016, manufacturers must have in place a quality assurance program that satisfies the requirements under 40 CFR 60.533(m)(1) through (5).
Q10: Does a certificate of compliance issued prior to May 15, 2015, at an emission level less than or equal to the 2015 emission standard need to be renewed before May 15, 2020?
A10: No. Manufacturers of model lines that are deemed certified per 40 CFR 60.533(h)(1) and for which a certificate of compliance has been issued prior to May 15, 2015, showing an emission level less than or equal to the 2015 emission standards, do not need to renew their certificates until May 15, 2020.
Q: Does EPA determine that the wood heater regulations at 40 CFR part 60 subparts AAA apply to the wood-burning sauna heaters manufactured by Harvia Oy?
A: No. Based upon the information provided and the specific circumstances described in Harvia Oy's letters to the EPA, the EPA determines that the wood heater subpart AAA standards do not apply to Harvia Oy's wood-burning sauna heaters since these do not meet the definition of wood heaters. The sauna heaters are intended to heat the sauna room only and not to be used for residential heating.
Q: Does the EPA determine that the Exide Technologies secondary lead smelting facility in Vernon, CA, which has been permanently shut down and is being dismantled, is subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart X?
A: No. The EPA determines that the facility is no longer a “secondary lead smelter” for purposes of subpart X because it can no longer physically or legally operate as a secondary lead smelter. In addition, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) approved Exide's Final Closure Plan on December 8, 2016.
Q: Does the EPA approve Futamura USA, Incorporated's (Futamura's) request to use an alternative test method using a mass spectrometer (MS) continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) to measure specific sulfur compound emissions from process vents on the cellulose manufacturing process and alternative monitoring method that would eliminate the need to collect and report carbon disulfide (CS2) Recovery Plan operating data based on the availability of the emissions data from the proposed MS CEMS to demonstrate compliance with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Cellulose Products Manufacturing (NESHAP subpart UUUU), at its Tecumseh, Kansas facility?
A: Yes. Based on the information provided, the EPA conditionally grants temporary approval for the alternative test method and monitoring method to allow Futamura to demonstrate the ability to document compliance with NESHAP UUUU by using a MS CEMS. This temporary approval expires one year from June 16, 2017. At least 60 days prior to this expiration date, Futamura is required to make a request to EPA for continue and permanent use
Q: Does the EPA approve BP Product North America's (BP) alternative monitoring request to maintain the hourly oxygen concentration in the exhaust gas from the catalyst regenerator at or above one percent by volume on a wet basis, as opposed to a dry basis as required by 40 CFR 63 subpart UUU at the Whiting, Indiana refinery?
A: Yes. The EPA approves the request to maintain the hourly oxygen concentration in the exhaust gas from the catalyst regenerator at or above one percent by volume on a wet basis during periods of startup, shutdown, and hot standby. BP provided information that indicates catalyst fines can plug an analyzer that measures on a dry basis. In addition, the oxygen concentration on a wet basis will always yield a lower reading versus a dry basis oxygen reading.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notification of public meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hereby provides notice that the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) will meet on the dates and times described below. All meetings are open to the public. Members of the public are encouraged to provide comments relevant to the specific issues being considered by the NEJAC. For additional information about registering to attend the meeting or to provide public comment, please see
The NEJAC will convene a Thursday, May 31, 2018, starting at 3:30 p.m., Eastern Time. The meeting discussion will focus on several topics including, but not limited to, the discussion and deliberation of the final report from the NEJAC Youth Perspectives on Climate Change Work Group. One public comment period relevant to the specific issues being considered by the NEJAC (see
Questions or correspondence concerning the public meeting should be directed to Karen L. Martin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, by mail at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC2201A), Washington, DC 20460; by telephone at 202-564-0203; via email at
The Charter of the NEJAC states that the advisory committee “will provide independent advice and recommendations to the Administrator about broad, crosscutting issues related to environmental justice. The NEJAC's efforts will include evaluation of a broad range of strategic, scientific, technological, regulatory, community engagement and economic issues related to environmental justice.”
Registration for the May 31, 2018, public teleconference will be processed at
Individuals or groups making remarks during the public comment period will be limited to seven (7) minutes. To accommodate the number of people who want to address the NEJAC, only one representative of a particular community, organization, or group will be allowed to speak. Written comments can also be submitted for the record. The suggested format for individuals providing public comments is as follows: Name of speaker; name of organization/community; city and state; and email address; brief description of the concern, and what you want the NEJAC to advise EPA to do. Written comments received by registration deadline, will be included in the materials distributed to the NEJAC prior to the teleconference. Written comments received after that time will be provided to the NEJAC as time allows. All written comments should be sent to Karen L. Martin, EPA, via email at
For information about access or services for individuals requiring assistance, please contact Karen L. Martin, at (202) 564-0203 or via email at
Office of Administrative Law Judges, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of order denying petition to set aside consent agreement and proposed final order.
In accordance with section 309(g)(4)(C) of the Clean Water Act (CWA or Act), notice is hereby given that an Order Denying Petition to Set Aside Consent Agreement and Proposed Final Order has been issued in the matter styled as
To access and review documents filed in the matter that is the subject of this document, please visit
Jennifer Almase, Attorney-Advisor, Office of Administrative Law Judges (1900R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW; telephone number: (202) 564-6255 (main) or (202) 564-1170 (direct); fax number: (202) 565-0044; email address:
Section 309(g)(1)(A) of the CWA empowers EPA to assess an administrative civil penalty whenever on the basis of any information available EPA finds that a person has violated certain sections of the Act or any permit condition or limitation implementing any such section in a permit issued under section 402 or 404 of the Act (33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(1)(A)). However, before issuing an order assessing an administrative civil penalty under section 309(g), EPA is required by the CWA and the Consolidated Rules of Practice Governing the Administrative Assessment of Civil Penalties and the Revocation/Termination or Suspension of Permits (Rules of Practice) to provide public notice of and reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed issuance of such order (33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(4); 40 CFR 22.45(b)(1)).
Any person who comments on the proposed assessment of a penalty is then entitled to receive notice of any hearing held under section 309(g) of the CWA and at such hearing is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present evidence (33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(4)(B); 40 CFR 22.45(c)(1)). If no hearing is held before issuance of an order assessing a penalty under section 309(g) of the CWA, such as where the administrative penalty action in question is settled pursuant to a consent agreement and final order, any person who commented on the proposed assessment may petition to set aside the order on the basis that material evidence was not considered and to hold a hearing on the penalty (33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(4)(C); 40 CFR 22.45(c)(4)(ii)).
The CWA requires that if the evidence presented by the petitioner in support of the petition is material and was not considered in the issuance of the order, the Administrator shall immediately set aside such order and provide a hearing in accordance with section 309(g)(33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(4)(C)). Conversely, if the Administrator denies a hearing, the Administrator shall provide to the petitioner, and publish in the
Pursuant to section 309(g) of the CWA, the authority to decide petitions by commenters to set aside final orders entered without a hearing and provide copies and/or notice of the decision has been delegated to Regional Administrators in administrative penalty actions brought by regional offices of EPA. Administrator's Delegation of Authority 2-52A (accessible at:
If the Petition Officer finds that a hearing is appropriate, the Presiding Officer shall order that the consent agreement and proposed final order be set aside and establish a schedule for a hearing (40 CFR 22.45(c)(4)(vi)). Conversely, if the Petition Officer finds that resolution of the proceeding without a hearing is appropriate, the Petition Officer shall issue an order denying the petition and stating reasons for the denial (40 CFR 22.45(c)(4)(vii)). The Petition Officer shall then file the order with the Regional Hearing Clerk, serve copies of the on the parties and the commenter, and provide public notice of the order.
In May of 2016, the Director of the Water Division of EPA's Region 5 (Complainant) and BP Products North America Inc. (Respondent) executed a Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) in the matter styled as
On or about June 1, 2016, EPA provided public notice of its intent to file the proposed CAFO and accept public comments thereon. Carlotta Blake-King, Carolyn A. Marsh, Debra Michaud, and Patricia Walter (Petitioners) timely filed comments on the proposed CAFO (Comments). Complainant subsequently prepared a Response to Comments Regarding Proposed CAFO (Response to Comments), which indicated that EPA would not be altering the proposed CAFO. The Response to Comments was mailed to Petitioners, together with a copy of the proposed CAFO, on or about January 13, 2017, and each Petitioner received the materials by January 30, 2017. On or about February 24, 2017, Petitioners timely filed a joint petition seeking to set aside the proposed CAFO
A Request to Assign Petition Officer (Request) was issued by Region 5's Acting Regional Administrator on May 17, 2017, and served on Petitioners on May 30, 2017. In the Request, the Acting Regional Administrator stated that after considering the issues raised in the Petition, Complainant had decided not to withdraw the CAFO. Accordingly, the Acting Regional Administrator requested assignment of an Administrative Law Judge to consider and rule on the Petition pursuant to § 22.45(c)(4)(iii) of the Rules of Practice, 40 CFR 22.45(c)(4)(iii). By Order dated June 16, 2017, the undersigned was designated to preside over this matter, and Complainant was directed to file a response to the Petition. Complainant filed its Response to Petition to Set Aside Consent Agreement and Proposed Final Order (Response to Petition) on July 13, 2017.
On May 8, 2018, the undersigned issued an Order Denying Petition to Set Aside Consent Agreement and Proposed Final Order (Order). Therein, the undersigned denied the Petition without the need for a hearing on the basis that Petitioners had failed to present any relevant and material evidence that had not been adequately considered and responded to by Complainant.
Specifically, Petitioners raised four issues.
Second, Petitioners urged that a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) be incorporated into the proposed CAFO and that local residents be included in the distribution of funds for SEP projects. The undersigned found that as Complainant had stated in its Response to Comments and Response to Petition, EPA lacks the legal authority to demand a SEP or control the distribution of civil penalty funds. The undersigned concluded that given this lack of authority, the issues raised by Petitioners with regard to a SEP were immaterial to the issuance of the proposed CAFO. Thus, this claim was denied.
Third, Petitioners urged that an independent advisory committee and environmental monitoring program for Respondent's wastewater treatment plant be created. Petitioners then questioned Respondent's community outreach activities, which Complainant had referenced in its Response to Comments. The undersigned found that as argued by Complainant in its Response to Petition, EPA lacks the legal authority under section 309(g) of the CWA to establish advisory committees or environmental monitoring programs or compel Respondent to engage in outreach activities. The undersigned concluded that given the absence of any material and relevant issue not considered by Complainant with respect to the course of action requested by Petitioners, their claim in this regard was also denied.
Finally, Petitioners referred in their Comments and Petition to Respondent having a history of violations. While a violator's history of prior violations is a statutory penalty factor to be considered under section 309(g)(3) of the CWA, the undersigned found that Petitioners had presented no specific claims of violations that were related to those set forth in the proposed CAFO, and presented no argument supporting the notion that any prior, unspecified infraction, had it been considered, should have led to a penalty different than that agreed upon by the parties. The undersigned also noted that Complainant had addressed claims concerning Respondent's history of violations in its Response to Comments, which suggested that to the extent any prior violations would be relevant to the proposed CAFO, Complainant had adequately considered them. Accordingly, any claim in this regard was denied.
Having found that Petitioners failed to present any relevant and material evidence that had not been adequately considered and responded to by Complainant in agreeing to the proposed CAFO, the undersigned then addressed Petitioners' requests for a public hearing in their Comments and Petition. Noting that Petitioners appeared to seek a public forum, at least in part, for the parties to explain the meaning of the proposed CAFO to the public, the undersigned observed that section 309(g) of the CWA and the Rules of Practice provide, not for a meeting of that nature, but rather a hearing at which evidence is presented for the purpose of determining whether Complainant met its burden of proving that Respondent committed the violations as alleged and that the proposed penalty is appropriate based on applicable law and policy. The undersigned noted that Petitioners did not specifically identify any testimonial or documentary evidence that they would present at any such hearing. The undersigned further noted that Petitioners did not offer in either their Comments or the Petition any relevant and material evidence or arguments that had not already been adequately addressed by Complainant. For these reasons, the undersigned found that resolution of the proceeding by the parties would be appropriate without a hearing.
The undersigned thus issued the Order Denying Petition to Set Aside Consent Agreement and Proposed Final Order.
Federal Election Commission.
Notice of filing dates for special election.
Texas has scheduled a special general election on June 30, 2018, to fill the U.S. House of Representatives seat in the 27th Congressional District vacated by Representative Blake Farenthold. There are two possible
Committees participating in the Texas special election are required to file pre- and post-election reports.
Ms. Elizabeth S. Kurland, Information Division, 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20463; Telephone: (202) 694-1100; Toll Free (800) 424-9530.
All principal campaign committees of candidates who participate in the Texas Special General Election shall file a 12-day Pre-General Report on June 18, 2018. If there is a majority winner, committees must also file a Post-General Report on July 30, 2018. (See chart below for the closing date for each report.)
Note that these reports are in addition to the campaign committee's regular quarterly filings. (See chart below for the closing date for each report).
Political committees filing on a quarterly basis in 2018 are subject to special election reporting if they make previously undisclosed contributions or expenditures in connection with the Texas Special General Election by the close of books for the applicable report(s). (See chart below for the closing date for each report.)
Committees filing monthly that make contributions or expenditures in connection with the Texas Special General Election will continue to file according to the monthly reporting schedule.
Additional disclosure information in connection with the Texas Special General Election may be found on the FEC website at
In the event that no candidate receives a majority of the votes in the Special General Election, a Special Runoff Election will be held. The Commission will publish a future notice giving the filing dates for that election if it becomes necessary.
Principal campaign committees, party committees and Leadership PACs that are otherwise required to file reports in connection with the special elections must simultaneously file FEC Form 3L if they receive two or more bundled contributions from lobbyists/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs that aggregate in excess of $18,200 during the special election reporting periods. (See charts below for closing date of each period.) 11 CFR 104.22(a)(5)(v), (b).
On behalf of the Commission.
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
60-Day notice of submission of information collection for approval from Office of Management and Budget.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA or the Agency) is seeking public comments concerning an information collection known as “Minimum Requirements for Appraisal Management Companies,” which has been assigned control number 2590-0013 by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). FHFA intends to submit the information collection to OMB for review and approval of a three-year extension of the control number, which is due to expire on July 31, 2018.
Interested persons may submit comments on or before July 16, 2018.
Submit comments to FHFA, identified by “Proposed Collection; Comment Request: `Minimum Requirements for Appraisal Management Companies, (No. 2018-N-05)' ” by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
We will post all public comments we receive without change, including any personal information you provide, such as your name and address, email address, and telephone number, on the FHFA website at
Robert Witt, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Housing and Regulatory Policy, by email at
FHFA is seeking comments on its upcoming request to OMB to renew the PRA clearance for the following collection of information:
In 2015, FHFA, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) (collectively, the Agencies) jointly issued regulations
The regulations also implement the statutory requirement that States report to the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) the information required by the ASC to administer the national registry of AMCs (AMC National Registry or Registry).
FHFA's AMC regulation, located at Subpart B of 12 CFR part 1222, is substantively identical to the AMC regulations of the FDIC, OCC, and Board and contains the recordkeeping and reporting requirements described below.
The regulation requires that each State electing to register AMCs for purposes of permitting AMCs to provide appraisal management services relating to covered transactions in the State submit to the ASC the information regarding such AMCs required to be submitted by ASC regulations or guidance concerning AMCs that operate in the State.
States seeking to register AMCs must have an AMC registration and supervision program. The regulation requires each participating State to establish and maintain within its appraiser certifying and licensing agency a registration and supervision program with the legal authority and mechanisms to: (i) Review and approve or deny an application for initial registration; (ii) periodically review and renew, or deny renewal of, an AMC's registration; (iii) examine an AMC's books and records and require the submission of reports, information, and documents; (iv) verify an AMC's panel members' certifications or licenses; (v) investigate and assess potential violations of laws, regulations, or orders; (vi) discipline, suspend, terminate, or deny registration renewals of, AMCs that violate laws, regulations, or orders; and (vii) report violations of appraisal-related laws, regulations, or orders, and disciplinary and enforcement actions to the ASC.
The regulation requires each participating state to impose requirements on AMCs that are not federally regulated (non-federally regulated AMCs) to: (i) Register with and be subject to supervision by a state appraiser certifying and licensing agency in each state in which the AMC operates; (ii) use only state-certified or state-licensed appraisers for federally regulated transactions in conformity with any federally regulated transaction regulations; (iii) establish and comply with processes and controls reasonably designed to ensure that the AMC, in engaging an appraiser, selects an appraiser who is independent of the transaction and who has the requisite education, expertise, and experience necessary to competently complete the appraisal assignment for the particular market and property type; (iv) direct the appraiser to perform the assignment in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice; and (v) establish and comply with processes and controls reasonably designed to ensure that the AMC conducts its appraisal management services in accordance with sections 129E(a) through (i) of the Truth-in-Lending Act.
The regulation provides that an AMC may not be registered by a state or included on the AMC National Registry
An entity meets the definition of an AMC that is subject to the requirements of the AMC regulation if, among other things, it oversees an appraiser panel of more than 15 state-certified or state-licensed appraisers in a state, or 25 or more state-certified or state-licensed appraisers in two or more states, within a given 12-month period.
There is no change in the methodology or substance of this information collection. For the information collections described above, the general methodology is to compute the industry wide burden hours for participating states and AMCs and then assign a share of the burden hours to each of the Agencies for each information collection.
As noted above, each of the Agencies' AMC regulations contains reporting and recordkeeping requirements applying to participating states and to both federally regulated and non-federally regulated AMCs. The Agencies have estimated that approximately 200 entities meet the regulatory definition of an “appraisal management company”
Thus, for ICs #1 and #2, which relate to reporting and recordkeeping requirements imposed upon participating states, each agency is responsible for 25 percent of the total estimated burden. For ICs #3 and #4, which relate to reporting and recordkeeping requirements imposed upon both federally regulated AMCs and non-federally regulated AMCs, the OCC, FDIC, and Board are each responsible for the burden imposed upon a total of 60 AMCs (40 federally regulated plus 20 non-federally regulated), or 30 percent of the total burden, while FHFA is responsible only for the burden imposed upon 20 non-federally regulated AMCs, or 10 percent of the total burden.
The Agencies estimate the total annualized hour burden placed on respondents by the information collection in the joint AMC regulations to be 1,445 hours. FHFA estimates its share of the hour burden to be 183 hours. The calculations on which those estimated are based are described below.
The total estimated burden hours for state reporting to the ASC are calculated by multiplying the number of states by the hour burden per state. The burden hours are then divided equally among the FDIC, OCC, Board, and FHFA, with each agency responsible for 25 percent of the total. For purposes of this calculation, the number of states is set at 55 which, in conformity with the regulatory definition of “state,” includes all 50 U.S. states as well as the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The estimated burden hours on participating states for developing and maintaining an AMC licensing program is calculated by multiplying the number of states without a registration and licensing program by the hour burden to develop the system. The total burden hours are then equally divided among the FDIC, OCC, Board, and FHFA. According to the Appraisal Institute, as of July 26, 2017, there were 5 states that had not developed a system to register and oversee AMCs.
The burden for AMC reporting requirements for information needed to determine the AMC National Registry fee and information regarding compliance with the AMC ownership restrictions is calculated by multiplying the number of AMCs by the frequency of response and then by the burden per
The frequency of response is estimated as the number of states that do not have an AMC registration program in which the average AMC operates.
The burden for recordkeeping by AMCs of written notices of appraiser removal from a network or panel is estimated to be equal to the number of appraisers who leave the profession per year multiplied by the estimated percentage of appraisers who work for AMCs, then multiplied by burden hours per notice. As described above, 30 percent of the burden hours are then assigned to each of the FDIC, OCC, and Board, while 10 percent are assigned to FHFA.
The number of appraisers who leave an AMC annually, either by resigning, being laid off, or having their licenses revoked or surrendered, is estimated to be 9,881. The burden estimate of 0.08 hours per notice is unchanged from the estimate provided for the currently-approved ICR. Therefore, the estimated total hour burden is: 9,881 notices × 0.08 hours = 790 hours (rounded to the nearest whole number). The estimated burden hours attributable to FHFA are 790 hours × 10 percent = 79 hours.
FHFA requests written comments on the following: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FHFA functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FHFA's estimates of the burdens of the collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
60-day notice of submission of information collection for approval from Office of Management and Budget.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA or the Agency) is seeking public comments concerning an information collection known as “Minority and Women Inclusion,” which has been assigned control number 2590-0014 by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). FHFA intends to submit the information collection to OMB for review and approval of a three-year extension of the control number, which is due to expire on July 31, 2018.
Interested persons may submit comments on or before July 16, 2018.
Submit comments to FHFA, identified by “Proposed Collection; Comment Request: `Minority and Women Inclusion, (No. 2018-N-06)' ” by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
We will post all public comments we receive without change, including any personal information you provide, such as your name and address, email address, and telephone number, on the FHFA website at
Sylvia Martinez, Principal Policy Analyst, Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, by email at
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is seeking comments on its collection of information regarding the minority and gender classification of individuals serving on the boards of directors of the Federal Home Loan Bank (Banks) and of the Office of Finance under FHFA's regulations on Minority and Women Inclusion (MWI), codified at 12 CFR part 1223, which it will soon be submitting for renewal of the OMB control number under the PRA.
The Federal Home Loan Bank System consists of eleven regional Banks and the Office of Finance, which issues and services the Banks' debt securities. The Banks are wholesale financial institutions, organized under authority of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) to serve the public interest by enhancing the availability of residential housing finance and community lending credit through their member institutions and, to a limited extent, through certain eligible non-member entities. Each Bank is structured as a regional cooperative that is owned and controlled by member financial institutions located within its
Section 1319A of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (Safety and Soundness Act) requires that each of the Banks establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI) to be responsible for all matters relating to diversity in its management, employment, and business activities, in accordance with requirements established by FHFA.
FHFA's MWI regulations implement those statutory requirements and also extend the requirements to the Office of Finance. The regulations require generally that each Bank and the Office of Finance “develop, implement, and maintain policies and procedures to ensure, to the maximum extent possible in balance with financially safe and sound business practices, the inclusion and utilization of minorities, women, individuals with disabilities, and minority-, women-, and disabled-owned businesses in all business and activities and at all levels of the regulated entity, including in management, employment, procurement, insurance, and all types of contracts.”
In conformity with the statutory requirements, FHFA's MWI regulations require that each Bank and the Office of Finance submit to FHFA an annual report describing, among other things, its efforts to promote diversity at all levels of management and employment, and the results of those efforts.
Therefore, in order to enable FHFA to assess those efforts, the MWI regulations separately require that the annual reports set forth “[d]ata showing for the reporting year by minority and gender classification, the number of individuals on the board of directors of each Bank and the Office of Finance,” using the same racial and ethnic classifications that are used on the EEO-1 form (which comply with OMB's “Statistical Policy Directive No. 15, Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting”).
FHFA uses the information collected under this control number to assess the effectiveness of the policies and procedures that each Bank and the Office of Finance is required to implement to promote diversity in all of its business and activities “at all levels” and, specifically, to encourage diversity in the nomination and solicitation of nominees for members of its boards of directors. FHFA also uses the information to establish a baseline to analyze future trends related to the diversity of the boards of directors of the Banks and the Office of Finance and to assess the effectiveness of the strategies developed by the Banks and the Office of Finance for promoting, developing, and retaining diverse board talent.
FHFA estimates the total annual hour burden imposed upon respondents by this information collection to be 20 hours. This is based on estimates that 200 Bank and Office of Finance Directors will respond annually, with each response taking an average of 0.1 hours (6 minutes) (200 respondents × 0.1 hours = 20 hours).
FHFA requests written comments on the following: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FHFA functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FHFA's estimates of the burdens of the collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the Registration Statement for Persons Who Extend Credit Secured by Margin Stock (Other Than Banks, Brokers, or Dealers) (FR G-1), the Deregistration Statement for Persons Registered Pursuant to
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC, 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551. OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The deregistration statement (FR G-2) is used by nonbank lenders to terminate its registration if their margin credit activities no longer exceed the regulatory threshold found in Regulation U. Under section 221.3(b)(2) of Regulation U, a registered nonbank lender may apply to terminate its registration if the lender has not, during the preceding six calendar months, had more than $200,000 of such credit outstanding.
The information submitted on the annual report (FR G-4) is required pursuant to Regulation U to enable the Federal Reserve to monitor the amount of credit extended by nonbank lenders that is secured by margin stock.
The FR G-1 and FR G-4 collect financial information, including a balance sheet, from nonbank lenders subject to Regulation U. Some of these lenders may be individuals or nonbank entities that do not make this information publicly available; release could therefore cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the respondent or result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. In those cases, the information could be withheld under exemption 4 or exemption 6 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and (6)), respectively. Confidentiality determinations will be made on a case-by-case basis. Because the FR G-3, FR T-4, and FR U-1 are not submitted to the Federal Reserve System and FR G-2 does not contain any information considered to be confidential, no confidentiality determination is necessary for these reports.
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 31, 2018.
1.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning claims and appeals.
Submit comments on or before July 16, 2018.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0035, Claims and Appeals, by any of the following methods:
•
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0035, Claims and Appeals”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0035, Claims and Appeals” on your attached document.
•
Mr. Charles Gray, Procurement Analyst, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, 703-795-6328 or via email at
It is the Government's policy to try to resolve all contractual issues by mutual agreement at the contracting officer's level without litigation. Reasonable efforts should be made to resolve controversies prior to submission of a contractor's claim. The Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 7103) requires that claims exceeding $100,000 must be accompanied by a certification that (1) the claim is made in good faith; (2) supporting data are accurate and complete; and (3) the amount requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which the contractor believes the Government is liable. The information, as required by FAR clause 52.233-1, Disputes, is used by a contracting officer to decide or resolve the claim. Contractors may appeal the contracting officer's decision by submitting written appeals to the appropriate officials.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on
Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0035, Claims and Appeals, in all correspondence.
Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) Bulletin 18-04, rescission of FTR Bulletins.
GSA is officially rescinding various FTR bulletins to ensure the Travel/Per Diem Bulletin section on the agency's FTR website displays only current information. Agencies' policies should be updated as warranted.
The rescission is as of May 16, 2018.
For clarification of content, please contact Mr. Cy Greenidge, Office of Government-wide Policy, Office of Asset and Transportation Management, at 202-219-2349, or by email at
Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, Section 3, paragraph (d)(ii), states in part, the Regulatory Reform Task Force shall attempt to identify regulations that are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective. GSA has conducted a thorough review of all FTR bulletins on the FTR Travel/Per Diem Bulletins website (
Data collection will include three primary surveys, previously approved by OMB: (1) A survey administered at the time of TLP enrollment (baseline), (2) a survey administered 6 months after enrollment, which will collect information on short-terms outcomes; and (3) a survey administered at 12 months, which will collect information on longer-term outcomes. Participants will be enrolled through the TLP study sites.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Blood Products Advisory Committee. The general function of the Blood Products Advisory Committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on regulatory issues related to blood and products derived from blood. On the first day of the meeting, the Committee will provide advice regarding bacterial risk control strategies to enhance the safety and availability of platelets for transfusion. On the second day of the meeting, the Committee, supplemented with members from the Microbiology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee, will function as a medical device panel to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on classification of devices. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held on July 18, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and July 19, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.
FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503, sections B and C), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
Bryan Emery, Division of Scientific Advisors and Consultants, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 6268, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-8054,
On July 19, 2018, the Committee will function as a medical device panel. The Committee will meet in open session to discuss and provide advice regarding the device reclassification from class III to class II of nucleic acid and serology-based point-of-care and laboratory-based in vitro diagnostic devices indicated for use as aids in the diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. The devices that will be discussed by the Committee during the meeting are post-amendment devices that currently are classified into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)).
FDA intends to make background material available to the public approximately 2 weeks and no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Bryan Emery
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Fax written comments on the collection of information by June 15, 2018.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Under section 1003(d)(2)(D) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 393(d)(2)(D)), FDA is authorized to conduct educational and public information programs.
In conducting studies relating to the regulation and communications related to tobacco products, FDA will need to employ formative qualitative research including focus groups, usability testing, and/or in-depth interviews (IDIs) to assess knowledge and perceptions about tobacco-related topics with specific target audiences. The information collected will serve three major purposes. First, formative research will provide critical knowledge about target audiences. FDA must understand people's knowledge and perceptions about tobacco-related topics before developing survey/research questions as well as stimuli for experimental studies. Second, by collecting communications usability information, FDA will be able to serve and respond to the ever-changing demands of consumers of tobacco products. Additionally, we will be able to determine the best way to present messages. Third, initial testing will allow FDA to assess consumer understanding of survey/research questions and study stimuli. Focus groups and/or IDIs with a sample of the target audience will allow FDA to refine the survey/research questions and study stimuli while they are still in the developmental stage. FDA will collect, analyze, and interpret information gathered through this generic clearance in order to: (1) Better understand characteristics of the target audience—its perceptions, knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors—and use these in the development of appropriate survey/research questions, study stimuli, or communications; (2) more efficiently and effectively design survey/research questions and study stimuli; and (3) more efficiently and effectively design experimental studies.
FDA is requesting approval of this new generic clearance for collecting information through the use of qualitative methods (
(Comment) The commenter stated that FDA should use the data we have collected in the past instead of collecting new information. The comment does not go in detail or provide any alternatives.
(Response) This collection is a valuable tool for conducting research. The studies FDA has conducted through this collection of information have been essential in helping FDA meet its mission as a science-based regulatory agency and implementing the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Pub. L. 111-31). Future submissions submitted under this generic clearance will continue to assist FDA in its mission to protect and promote public health.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The number of respondents to be included in each new pretest may vary, depending on the nature of the material or message being tested and the target audience. Table 1 provides examples of the types of studies that may be administered and estimated burden levels during a 3-year period. Time to read, view, or listen to the message being tested is built into the “Hours per Response” figures.
FDA has updated the estimated burden that was published in the 60-day notice. The estimated burden for this collection has increased by 4,437 hours from 6,184 to 10,621. FDA attributes this increase to adding usability testing, and increasing the overall number of studies planned the next 3 years.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before June 15, 2018.
Submit your comments to
Sherrette Funn,
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), in partnership with the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is requesting Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for a new information collection request titled, “Trafficking Victim Assistance Program (TVAP) Social Network Analysis—Network Survey.” Under the guidance of ASPE and ACF, a contractor is carrying out this assessment. The data collected and analyzed under this submission will help HHS better understand the type and extent of the relationship between the TVAP grantees, TVAP subrecipients, and other service providers operating in TVAP subrecipient areas. It will also help illuminate each grantee's and subrecipient's types and number of services provided, estimated costs of services, service coordination between grantees or subrecipients and other services providers, and type and strength of relationships between grantees and subrecipients. This information will enable HHS to understand the structure of the grantee/subrecipient network and inform recommendations for more efficient network management and distribution of support.
TVAP, as authorized by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, provides comprehensive case management services to foreign-born victims of human trafficking residing in the United States. Since its inception, TVAP funding and infrastructure have remained relatively unchanged: Services are paid on a per capita basis, and funds are managed through three primary grantees that enter into cooperative agreements with service providers (subrecipients). Given the changing landscape and the greater understanding of the nature and extent of trafficking, HHS is undertaking a program assessment to understand whether any efficiencies can be gained in the program administration and structure. To supplement an earlier fiscal year 2018 assessment to solicit qualitative feedback from a range of program stakeholders, the information collected for this program survey aims to help HHS determine if efficiencies can be gained through improved coordination among TVAP grantees, TVAP subrecipients, and other service providers.
Data will be collected through an electronic survey of fiscal year 2016 TVAP grantees and subrecipients. Key staff at grantee sites and subrecipient organizations will complete a self-administered online survey that will include questions about each respondent's services provided, estimated costs of services, service coordination between grantees or subrecipients, and type and strength of
Department of Health and Human Services.
Policy Statement; Request for information.
Through this request for information, HHS seeks comment from interested parties to help shape future policy development and agency action.
Comments must be submitted on or before July 16, 2018.
You may submit comments in one of three ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
1.
2.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3.
John O'Brien, (202) 690-7886.
The United States is the world's leader in biopharmaceutical innovation. American innovation has improved health and quality of life for billions of people, and was made possible by our intellectual property system, decades of government and privately-funded research, strong capital markets, and the world's largest scientific research base. By rewarding innovation through patent and data protection, American companies hold the intellectual property rights for most new, and potentially life changing, medicines. Our regulatory system is the most rigorous in the world, ensuring the safety and efficacy of drugs for American patients. Medicare, Medicaid, other Federal health programs, and private payers ensure Americans have access to medicines, from innovative new cures, to generic versions of medications that have markedly lowered costs for consumers.
As part of President Trump's bold plan to put American patients first, the Department of Health and Human Services has developed a comprehensive blueprint that addresses many of the challenges and opportunities impacting American patients and consumers. The blueprint covers multiple areas including, but not limited to:
• Improving competition and ending the gaming of the regulatory process,
• supporting better negotiation of drug discounts in government-funded insurance programs,
• creating incentives for pharmaceutical companies to lower list prices, and,
• reducing out-of-pocket spending for patients at the pharmacy and other sites of care.
HHS also recognizes that achieving the goal of putting American patients first will require interagency collaboration on pharmaceutical trade policies that promote innovation, and are transparent, nondiscriminatory, and increase fair market access for American innovators. Furthermore, HHS seeks to identify when developed nations are paying less for drugs than the prices paid by Federal health programs, and correct these inequities through better negotiation.
HHS has already acted to increase the affordability of medicines for millions of our citizens, but is also going much further in response to President Trump's call to action. Through the work of the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS has tremendous ability to change how drugs are developed and paid for in the United States.
The status quo is no longer acceptable. Millions of Americans face soaring drug prices and higher out-of-pocket costs, while manufacturers and middlemen such as pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and distributors benefit from rising list prices and their resulting higher rebates and administrative fees. An unprecedented re-examination of the whole system and opportunities for reform is long overdue. We believe a national focus on lowering list prices and out-of-pocket costs has the potential to create new and disruptive alternatives to the current system, while maintaining its many virtues. It is time to realign the system in a way that promotes the development of affordable innovations that improve health outcomes and lower both out-of-pocket cost and the total cost of care.
Through this request for information, HHS seeks comment from interested parties to help shape future policy development and agency action.
The President has consistently emphasized the need to reduce the price of prescription drugs. The Trump Administration has already taken a number of significant administrative steps, and proposed in the President's FY2019 Budget, to improve competition and end the gaming of regulatory processes, support better negotiation of drug discounts through government insurance programs, create incentives for pharmaceutical companies to lower list prices, and reduce consumer out-of-pocket spending at the pharmacy and other care settings.
Since the beginning of the Trump Administration, HHS has taken a number of actions to increase competition and end the gaming of regulatory processes that may keep drug prices artificially inflated or hinder generic, branded, or biosimilar competition. These efforts include:
• Accelerating Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of generic drugs. Studies show that greater generic competition is associated with lower prices. FDA is publishing the names of drugs that have no competitors in order to spur new entrants and bring prices down. Over 1,000 generic drugs were approved in 2017, which is the most in FDA's history in a calendar year by over 200 drugs. These generic approvals saved American consumers and taxpayers nearly $9 billion in 2017.
• Drug Competition Action Plan. In 2017, President Trump's FDA established a Drug Competition Action Plan to enable patients to access more affordable medications by focusing the Agency's efforts in three key areas: (1) Improving the efficiency of the generic drug development, review, and approval process; (2) maximizing scientific and regulatory clarity with respect to complex generic drugs; and (3) closing loopholes that allow brand-name drug companies to “game” FDA rules in ways that forestall the generic competition Congress intended. The Agency also has taken steps to prioritize its review of generic drug applications; issued guidance to improve efficiencies in the development, review, and approval processes for generic drugs, including complex generic drugs; and issued guidance to further streamline the submission and review process for shared system REMS, and to allow collective submissions to streamline the review of shared Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS).
• FDA also announced it will facilitate opportunities for enhanced information sharing between manufacturers, doctors, patients and insurers to improve patient access to medical products, including through value-based insurance.
• Speeding Access to More Affordable Generics by Spurring Competition. Today, a generic manufacturer that has been awarded 180-day exclusivity for being the first generic to file can “park” their application with FDA, preventing additional generic manufacturers from entering the market. The President's FY2019 Budget proposes to prevent companies from using their 180-day exclusivity to indefinitely delay real competition and savings for consumers by seeking a legislative change to start a company's 180-day exclusivity clock in certain instances when another generic application is ready for approval, but is blocked solely by such a first applicant's 180-day exclusivity.
• Finalizing a policy in which each biosimilar for a given biologic gets its own billing and payment code under Medicare Part B, to incentivize development of additional lower-cost biosimilars. Prior approaches to biosimilar coding and payment would have created a race to the bottom of biosimilar pricing, while leaving the branded product untouched, making it an unviable market that few would want to enter.
Medicare Part D has been very successful since it launched in 2006. However, prescription drug markets are different than they were 12 years ago, and in some cases Part D plan sponsors may be prohibited from doing what private payers outside the Medicare program do to negotiate effectively and keep costs low. More can also be done across the Medicare program to provide beneficiaries with the lower costs and greater price transparency resulting from better negotiation.
Since the beginning of the Trump Administration, HHS has taken a number of actions to support better negotiation. These efforts include:
• Finalizing changes to the Medicare Prescription Drug Program in the 2019 Part C and Part D regulation allowing for faster mid-year substitution of generic drugs onto formularies.
• Proposing in the President's FY2019 Budget
• Proposing in the President's FY2019 Budget to address abusive drug pricing by manufacturers by: establishing an inflation limit for reimbursement of Medicare Part B drugs; reducing Wholesale Acquisition Cost (WAC)-Based Payment when Average Sales Price (ASP) isn't available; and improving manufacturers' reporting of Average Sales Prices to set accurate payment rates.
• Increasing the integrity of the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, so that manufacturers pay their fair share in rebates, by proposing in the President's FY2019 Budget to remove ambiguity regarding how drugs should be reported under the program. HHS is also manually reviewing each new drug that has been reported in the Medicaid rebate system on a quarterly basis to make sure classifications are correct, and the United States took legal action against Mylan for their misclassification of EpiPen, resulting in an agreement for Mylan to pay back $465 million in rebate payments.
• Proposing in the President's FY2019 Budget to further clarify the Medicaid definition of brand drugs, which would address inappropriate interpretations leading some manufacturers to classify certain brand and over-the-counter drugs as generics for Medicaid rebate purposes, reducing the rebates they owe.
• Proposing in the President's FY2019 Budget to call for new Medicaid demonstration authority for up to five states to test drug coverage and financing reforms that build on private sector best practices. Participating states would determine their own drug formularies, coupled with an appeals process to protect beneficiary access to non-covered drugs based on medical need, and negotiate drug prices directly
• Proposing in the President's FY2019 Budget to authorize the HHS Secretary to leverage Medicare Part D plans' negotiating power for certain drugs covered under Part B.
• Addressing price disparities in the international market. The Administration is updating a number of historical studies to analyze drug prices paid in countries that are a part of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
The list price of a drug does not reflect the discounts or price concessions paid to a PBM, insurer, health plan, or government program. Obscuring these discounts can shift costs to consumers in commercial health plans and Medicare beneficiaries. Many incentives in the current system reward higher list prices, and HHS is interested in creating new incentives to reward drug manufacturers that lower list prices or do not increase them.
Since the beginning of the Trump Administration, HHS has taken a number of actions to create incentives to lower list prices. These efforts include:
• Proposing in the President's FY2019 budget a 5-part plan to modernize the Medicare Part D program, a portion of which includes the exclusion of manufacturer discounts from the calculation of beneficiary out-of-pocket costs in the Medicare Part D coverage gap, and the establishment of a beneficiary out-of-pocket maximum in the Medicare Part D catastrophic phase to reduce out-of-pocket spending for beneficiaries who spend the most on drugs. The changes in the catastrophic phase would shift more responsibility onto plans, creating incentives for plans to negotiate with manufacturers to lower prices for high-cost drugs. We note that the 5-part plan is intended to be implemented together, as eliminating even one piece of the package significantly changes the proposal's impacts.
• In addition, the President's FY2019 Budget proposes reforms to improve 340B Program integrity and ensure that the benefits derived from participation in the program are used to benefit patients, especially low-income and uninsured populations.
American patients have the right to know what their prescription drugs will really cost before they get to the pharmacy or get the drug. Too many people abandon their prescriptions at the pharmacy when they discover the price is too high, and too many patients are never informed of lower cost options.
Since the beginning of the Trump Administration, HHS has taken a number of steps to lower consumer out-of-pocket spending and improve transparency. These efforts include:
• Finalizing Medicare Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) rules to reduce beneficiary out-of-pocket spending for 340B drugs administered in certain hospitals by an estimated $320 million in 2018, which would equal $3.2 billion when multiplied over ten years.
• Seeking information about changes in the Medicare Prescription Drug Program regulations for contract year 2019 that would increase transparency for people with Medicare prescription drug coverage. The proposed rule included a Request for Information soliciting comment on potential policy approaches for applying some manufacturer rebates and all pharmacy price concessions to the price of a drug at the point of sale.
• Finalizing changes to the Medicare Prescription Drug Program in the 2019 Part C and Part D regulation allowing Medicare beneficiaries receiving low-income subsidies to access biosimilars at a lower cost.
• Proposing in the President's FY2019 Budget a 5-part plan to modernize the Medicare Part D program, a portion of which includes eliminating cost-sharing on generic drugs for low-income beneficiaries and requiring Medicare Part D plans to apply a substantial portion of rebates at the point of sale. We note that the 5-part plan is intended to be implemented together, as eliminating even one piece of the package significantly changes the proposal's impacts. We also note that in the months following this Part D proposed rule and the President's budget proposal that included this policy change explicitly, several major insurers and pharmacy benefit managers announced they would pass along a portion of rebates to individual members in their fully-insured populations or when otherwise requested by employers.
President Trump recently reaffirmed his commitment to reducing the price of prescription drugs, and called on the Administration to propose new strategies and take bold actions to improve competition and end the gaming of regulatory processes, support better negotiation of drug discounts through government insurance programs, create incentives for pharmaceutical companies to lower list prices, and reduce consumer out-of-pocket spending at the pharmacy and other care settings. HHS may undertake these and other actions, to the extent permitted by law, in response to President Trump's call to action.
In response to President Trump's call to action, HHS may support improved competition by:
•
•
In response to President Trump's call to action, HHS may support better negotiation by:
• Directing CMS to develop demonstration projects to test innovative ways to encourage value-based care and lower drug prices. These models should hold manufacturers accountable for outcomes, align with CMS's priorities of value over volume and site-neutral payments, and provide Medicare providers, payers, and states with additional tools to manage spending for high-cost therapies.
• Allowing Part D plans to adjust formulary or benefit design during the benefit year if necessary to address a price increase for a sole source generic drug. Presently, Part D plans do not contract with generic drug manufacturers for the purchase of generic drugs, and generally are not permitted to change their formulary or benefit design without CMS approval in
• Providing plans full flexibility to manage high cost drugs that do not provide Part D plans with rebates or negotiated fixed prices, including in the protected classes. Presently, Part D plans are unable to negotiate lower prices for high-cost drugs without competition. This change could allow Part D plans to use the tools available to private payers outside of the Medicare program to better negotiate for these drugs.
• Updating the methodology used to calculate Drug Plan Customer Service star ratings for plans that are appropriately managing utilization of high-cost drugs. Presently, if a Part D plan issues an adverse redetermination decision, the enrollee, the enrollee's representative or the enrollee's prescriber may appeal the decision to the Independent Review Entity (IRE). This process may discourage Part D plan sponsors from appropriately managing utilization of high-cost drugs. This change could provide Part D plan sponsors with the ability to appropriately manage high-cost changes, while holding sponsors accountable primarily using other successful enforcement mechanisms.
• Evaluating options to allow high-cost drugs to be priced or covered differently based on their indication. Presently, Part D plans must cover and pay the same price for a drug regardless of the indication for which it was prescribed. This change could permit Part D plans to choose to cover or pay a different price for a drug, based on the indication.
• Sending the President a report identifying particular drugs or classes of drugs in Part B where there are savings to be gained by moving them to Part D.
• Taking steps to leverage the authority created by the Competitive Acquisition Program (CAP) for Part B Drugs & Biologicals. This program will generally provide physicians a choice between obtaining these drugs from vendors selected through a competitive bidding process or directly purchasing these drugs and being paid under the current average sales price (ASP) methodology. The CAP, or a model building on CAP authority, may provide opportunities for Federal savings to the extent that aggregate bid prices are less than 106 percent of ASP, and provides opportunities for physicians who do not wish to bear the financial burdens and risk associated with being in the business of drug acquisition.
• Working in conjunction with the Department of Commerce the U.S. Trade Representative, and the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator to develop the knowledge base necessary to address the unfair disparity between the drug prices in America and other developed countries. The Trump Administration is committed to making the appropriate regulatory changes and seeking legislative solutions to put American patients first.
In response to President Trump's call to action, HHS may:
• Call on the FDA to evaluate the inclusion of list prices in direct-to-consumer advertising.
• Direct the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to make Medicare and Medicaid prices more transparent, hold drug makers accountable for their price increases, highlight drugs that have not taken price increases, and recognize when competition is working with an updated drug pricing dashboard. This tool will also provide patients, families, and caregivers with additional information to make informed decisions and predict their cost sharing.
• Develop proposals related to the Affordable Care Act's Maximum Rebate Amount provision, which limits manufacturer rebates on brand and generic drugs in the Medicaid program to 100% of the Average Manufacturer Price.
In response to President Trump's call for action, HHS may:
• Prohibit Part D plan contracts from preventing pharmacists from telling patients when they could pay less out-of-pocket by not using their insurance—also known as pharmacy gag clauses.
• Require Part D Plan sponsors to provide additional information about drug price increases and lower-cost alternatives in the Explanation of Benefits they currently provide their members.
Building on the ideas already proposed, HHS is considering even bolder actions to bring down prices for patients and taxpayers. These include new measures to increase transparency; fix the incentives that may be increasing prices for patients; and reduce the costs of drug development. HHS is interested in public comments about how the Department can take action to improve competition and end the gaming of regulatory processes, support better negotiation of drug discounts through government insurance programs, create incentives for pharmaceutical companies to lower list prices, and reduce consumer out-of-pocket spending at the pharmacy and other care settings. HHS is also interested in public comments about the general structure and function of the pharmaceutical market, to inform these actions. Proposals described in this section are for administrative action, when within agency authority, and legislative proposals as necessary.
In this Request for Information, HHS is soliciting comments on these and other policies under active consideration.
The American pharmaceutical marketplace is built on innovation and competition. However, regulations governing how Medicare and Medicaid pay for prescription drugs have not kept pace with the availability of new types of drugs, particularly higher-cost curative therapies intended for use by fewer patients. Drug companies, commercial insurers, and states have proposed creative approaches to financing these new treatments, including indication-based pricing, outcomes-based contracts, long-term financing models, and others. Value-based transformation of our entire healthcare system is a top HHS priority. Improving price transparency is an important part of achieving this aim. What steps can be taken to improve price transparency in Medicare, Medicaid, and other forms of health coverage, so that consumers can seek value when choosing and using their benefits?
Part B drugs are reportedly available to OECD nations at lower prices than those paid by Medicare Part B providers. HHS is interested in receiving data describing the differences between the list prices and net prices paid by Medicare Part B providers, and the prices paid for these same drugs by OECD nations. Though these national health systems may be demanding lower prices by restricting access or delaying entry, should Part B drugs sold by manufacturers offering lower prices to OECD nations be subject to negotiation by Part D plans? Would this lead to lower out-of-pocket costs on behalf of people with Medicare? How could this affect access to medicines for people with Medicare?
Government programs, commercial insurers, and individual consumers pay for drugs differently. The price paid at the pharmacy counter or reimbursed to a physician or hospital is the result of many different complex financial transactions between drug makers, distributors, insurers, pharmacy benefits managers, pharmacies and others. Public programs are also subject to state and Federal regulations governing what drugs are covered, who can be paid for them, and how much will be paid. Too often, these negotiations do not result in the lowest out-of-pocket costs for consumers, and may actually be causing higher list prices.
Do PBM rebates and fees based on the percentage of the list price create an incentive to favor higher list prices (and the potential for higher rebates) rather than lower prices? Do higher rebates encourage benefits consultants who represent payers to focus on high rebates instead of low net cost? Do payers manage formularies favoring benefit designs that yield higher rebates rather than lower net drug costs? How are beneficiaries negatively impacted by incentives across the benefits landscape (manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer, PBM, consultants and insurers) that favor higher list prices? How can these incentives be reset to prioritize lower out of pocket costs for consumers, better adherence and improved outcomes for patients? What data would support or refute the premise described above?
Should PBMs be obligated to act solely in the interest of the entity for whom they are managing pharmaceutical benefits? Should PBMs be forbidden from receiving any payment or remuneration from manufacturers, and should PBM contracts be forbidden from including rebates or fees calculated as a percentage of list prices? What effect would imposing this fiduciary duty on PBMs on behalf of the ultimate payer (
The Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes for new Part B drugs are not typically assigned until after they are commercially available. Should they be available immediately at launch for new drugs from manufacturers committing to a price over a particular lookback period? What should CMS consider doing, under current authorities, to create incentives for Part B drugs committing to a price over a particular lookback period? How long should the lookback period be?
How could these incentives affect the behavior of manufacturers and purchasers? What are the operational concerns to implementing them? Are there other incentives that could be created to reward manufacturers of drugs that have not taken a price increase during a particular lookback period?
What impacts would these changes have on list prices, price increases over time, and public and private payers? What data would support or refute the premise described above?
CMS regulations presently exclude manufacturer sponsored drug discount card programs from the determination of average manufacturer price and the determination of best price. What effect would eliminating this exclusion have on drug prices?
Would there be circumstances under which allowing beneficiaries of Federal health care programs to utilize copay discount cards would advance public health benefits such as medication adherence, and outweigh the effects on list price and concerns about program integrity? What data would support or refute this?
The 340B Drug Pricing Program was established by Congress in 1992, and requires drug manufacturers participating in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to provide covered outpatient drugs to eligible health care providers—also known as covered entities—at reduced prices. Covered entities include certain qualifying hospitals and Federal grantees identified in section 340B of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA). The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) administers and oversees the 340B program, and the discounts provided may affect the prices paid for drugs used by Medicare beneficiaries, people with Medicaid, and those covered by commercial insurance.
We are interested in all suggestions to improve the affordability and accessibility of prescription drugs, including reflections and answers to questions not specifically asked above. Whenever possible, respondents are asked to draw their responses from objective, empirical, and actionable evidence and to cite this evidence within their responses.
What other regulations or government policies may be increasing list prices, net prices, and out-of-pocket drug spending? What other policies or legislative proposals should HHS consider to lower drug prices while encouraging innovation? What data or evidence should HHS consider when developing proposals to lower drug prices?
HHS is actively working to reduce regulatory burdens. To what extent do current regulations or government policies related to prescription drug pricing impose burden on providers, payers, or others? To what extent do the planned actions described in this document impose burden, and do these burdens outweigh the benefits?
This is a request for information only. Respondents are encouraged to provide complete but concise responses to the questions outlined above. We note that a response to every question is not required. This request for information is issued solely for information and planning purposes; it does not constitute a notice of proposed rulemaking or request for proposals, applications, proposal abstracts, or quotations. This request for information does not commit the United States Government (“Government”) to contract for any supplies or services or make a grant award. Further, HHS is not seeking proposals through this request for information and will not accept unsolicited proposals. Respondents are advised that the Government will not pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in response to this request for information; all costs associated with responding to this request for information will be solely at the interested party's expense.
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. This request for information constitutes a general solicitation of comments. In accordance with the implementing regulations of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) at 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(4), information subject to the PRA does not generally include “facts or opinions submitted in response to general solicitations of comments from the public, published in the
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting of the NHLBI Mentored Transition to Independence Review Committee.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, May 22, 2018, 10:00 a.m. to May 22, 2018, 5:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
The meeting will be held on June 13, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the meeting of the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (
Comments must be submitted on or before June 15, 2018.
Submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Information Management Division, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, email address
This proposed information collection previously published in the
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is publishing this notice to announce that a Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC) will take place.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 26, 2018 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., and on Wednesday, June 27, 2018 from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time).
The meeting will be held at the Department of the Interior building, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240 in the South Penthouse Conference Room. Send your comments to the Group Federal Officer by email to
Mr. John Mahoney, Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 909 First Avenue, Suite 800, Seattle, WA 98104; by email at
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552B, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
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 may 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.
Office of the Secretary, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, Interior.
Notice of Information Collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of the Secretary, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 16, 2018.
Send your written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to Shawn Alam, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, MS 5538-MIB, Washington, DC 20240, fax 202-208-6970 or email to
To request additional information about this ICR, any explanatory information and related forms, please use the contact
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the Office of the Secretary, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance Departments; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Office of the Secretary, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance Departments enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Office of the Secretary, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance Departments minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
On November 23, 2016, the Departments of Agriculture, the Interior, and Commerce published a final rule on the March 31, 2015 revised interim final rule to the interim rule originally published in November 2005 at 7 CFR part 1, 43 CFR part 45, and 50 CFR part 221, to implement section 241 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EP Act), Public Law 109-58, enacted on August 8, 2005. Section 241 of the EP Act added a new section 33 to the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 823d, that allowed the license applicant or any other party to the license proceeding to propose an alternative to a condition or prescription that one or more of the Departments develop for inclusion in a hydropower license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under the FPA. This provision required that the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Commerce collect the information covered by 1094-0001.
Under FPA section 33, the Secretary of the Department involved must accept the proposed alternative if the Secretary determines, based on substantial evidence provided by a party to the license proceeding or otherwise available to the Secretary, (a) that the alternative condition provides for the adequate protection and utilization of the reservation, or that the alternative prescription will be no less protective than the fishway initially proposed by the Secretary, and (b) that the alternative will either cost significantly less to implement or result in improved operation of the project works for electricity production.
In order to make this determination, the regulations require that all of the following information be collected: (1) A description of the alternative, in an equivalent level of detail to the Department's preliminary condition or prescription; (2) an explanation of how the alternative: (i) If a condition, will provide for the adequate protection and utilization of the reservation; or (ii) if a prescription, will be no less protective than the fishway prescribed by the bureau; (3) an explanation of how the alternative, as compared to the preliminary condition or prescription, will: (i) Cost significantly less to implement; or (ii) result in improved operation of the project works for electricity production; (4) an explanation of how the alternative or revised alternative will affect: (i) Energy supply, distribution, cost, and use; (ii) flood control; (iii) navigation; (iv) water supply; (v) air quality; and (vi) other aspects of environmental quality; and (5) specific citations to any scientific studies, literature, and other documented information relied on to support the proposal.
This notice of proposed renewal of an existing information collection is being published by the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, Department of the Interior, on behalf of all three Departments, and the data provided below covers anticipated responses (alternative conditions/prescriptions and associated information) for all three Departments.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before April 28, 2018, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by May 31, 2018.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service and all other carriers
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before April 28, 2018. Pursuant to Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
Additional documentation has been received for the following resource:
Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of contract actions.
Notice is hereby given of contractual actions that have been proposed to the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and are new, discontinued, or completed since the last publication of this notice. This notice is one of a variety of means used to inform the public about proposed contractual actions for capital recovery and management of project resources and facilities consistent with section 9(f) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939. Additional announcements of individual contract actions may be published in the
The identity of the approving officer and other information pertaining to a specific contract proposal may be obtained by calling or writing the appropriate regional office at the address and telephone number given for each region in the
Michelle Kelly, Reclamation Law Administration Division, Bureau of Reclamation, P.O. Box 25007, Denver, Colorado 80225-0007; telephone 303-445-2888.
Consistent with section 9(f) of the Reclamation Project Act of
Public participation in and receipt of comments on contract proposals will be facilitated by adherence to the following procedures:
1. Only persons authorized to act on behalf of the contracting entities may negotiate the terms and conditions of a specific contract proposal.
2. Advance notice of meetings or hearings will be furnished to those parties that have made a timely written request for such notice to the appropriate regional or project office of Reclamation.
3. Written correspondence regarding proposed contracts may be made available to the general public pursuant to the terms and procedures of the Freedom of Information Act, as amended.
4. Written comments on a proposed contract or contract action must be submitted to the appropriate regional officials at the locations and within the time limits set forth in the advance public notices.
5. All written comments received and testimony presented at any public hearings will be reviewed and summarized by the appropriate regional
6. Copies of specific proposed contracts may be obtained from the appropriate regional director or his or her designated public contact as they become available for review and comment.
7. In the event modifications are made in the form of a proposed contract, the appropriate regional director shall determine whether republication of the notice and/or extension of the comment period is necessary.
Factors considered in making such a determination shall include, but are not limited to, (i) the significance of the modification, and (ii) the degree of public interest which has been expressed over the course of the negotiations. At a minimum, the regional director will furnish revised contracts to all parties who requested the contract in response to the initial public notice.
1. Irrigation, M&I, and Miscellaneous Water Users; Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Wyoming: Temporary or interim irrigation and M&I water service, water storage, water right settlement, exchange, miscellaneous use, or water replacement contracts to provide up to 10,000 acre-feet of water annually for terms up to 5 years; long-term contracts for similar service for up to 1,000 acre-feet of water annually.
2. Rogue River Basin Water Users, Rogue River Basin Project, Oregon: Water service contracts; $8 per acre-foot per annum.
3. Willamette Basin Water Users, Willamette Basin Project, Oregon: Water service contracts; $8 per acre-foot per annum.
4. Pioneer Ditch Company, Boise Project, Idaho; Clark and Edwards Canal and Irrigation Company, Enterprise Canal Company, Ltd., Lenroot Canal Company, Liberty Park Canal Company, Poplar ID, all in the Minidoka Project, Idaho; and Juniper Flat District Improvement Company, Wapinitia Project, Oregon: Amendatory repayment and water service contracts; purpose is to conform to the RRA.
5. Nine water user entities of the Arrowrock Division, Boise Project, Idaho: Repayment agreements with districts with spaceholder contracts for repayment, per legislation, of the reimbursable share of costs to rehabilitate Arrowrock Dam Outlet Gates under the O&M program.
6. Three irrigation water user entities, Rogue River Basin Project, Oregon: Long-term contracts for exchange of water service with three entities for the provision of up to 292 acre-feet of stored water from Applegate Reservoir (a USACE project) for irrigation use in exchange for the transfer of out-of-stream water rights from the Little Applegate River to instream flow rights with the State of Oregon for instream flow use.
7. Conagra Foods Lamb Weston, Inc., Columbia Basin Project, Washington: Miscellaneous purposes water service contract providing for the delivery of up to 1,500 acre-feet of water from the Scooteney Wasteway for effluent management.
8. Benton ID, Yakima Project, Washington: Replacement contract to, among other things, withdraw the District from the Sunnyside Division Board of Control; provide for direct payment of the District's share of total operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement costs incurred by the United States in operation of storage division; and establish District responsibility for operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement for irrigation distribution system.
9. City of Prineville and Ochoco ID, Crooked River Project, Oregon: Long-term contract to provide the City of Prineville with a mitigation water supply from Prineville Reservoir; with Ochoco ID anticipated to be a party to the contract, as they are responsible for O&M of the dam and reservoir.
10. Burley and Minidoka IDs, Minidoka Project, Idaho: Supplemental and amendatory contracts to transfer the O&M of the Main South Side Canal Headworks to Burley ID and transfer the O&M of the Main North Side Canal Headworks to the Minidoka ID.
11. Clean Water Services and Tualatin Valley ID, Tualatin Project, Oregon: Long-term water service contract that provides for the District to allow Clean Water Services to beneficially use up to 6,000 acre-feet annually of stored water for water quality improvement.
12. Willow Creek District Improvement Company, Willow Creek Project, Oregon: Amend contract to increase the amount of storage water made available under the existing long-term contract from 2,500 to 3,500 acre-feet.
13. East Columbia Basin ID, Columbia Basin Project, Washington: Amendment of renewal master water service contract No. 159E101882, to authorize up to an additional 70,000 acres within the District that are located within the Odessa Subarea and eligible to participate in the Odessa Groundwater Replacement Program, to receive Columbia Basin Project irrigation water service; and to provide for additional acreage development through future water conservation measures.
14. Stanfield ID, Umatilla Basin Project, Oregon: A short-term water service contract to provide for the use of conjunctive use water, if needed, for the purposes of pre-saturation or for such use in October to extend their irrigation season.
15. Yakima Nation and Cascade ID, Yakima Project, Washington: Long-term contract for an exchange of water and to authorize the use of capacity in Yakima Project facilities to convey up to 10 cubic feet per second of nonproject water during the non-irrigation season for fish hatchery purposes.
16. Talent, Medford, and Rogue River Valley IDs; Rogue River Basin Project; Oregon: Contracts for repayment of reimbursable shares of SOD program modifications for Howard Prairie Dam.
17. Falls ID, Michaud Flats Project, Idaho: Amendment to contract No. 14-06-100-851 to authorize the District to participate in State water rental pool.
1. Irrigation water districts, individual irrigators, M&I and miscellaneous water users; California, Nevada, and Oregon: Temporary (interim) water service contracts for available project water for irrigation, M&I, or fish and wildlife purposes providing up to 10,000 acre-feet of water annually for terms up to 5 years; temporary Warren Act contracts for use of excess capacity in project facilities for terms up to 5 years; temporary conveyance agreements with
2. Contractors from the American River Division, Delta Division, Cross Valley Canal, San Felipe Division, West San Joaquin Division, San Luis Unit, and Elk Creek Community Services District; CVP; California: Renewal of 30 interim and long-term water service contracts; water quantities for these contracts total in excess of 2.1M acre-feet. These contract actions will be accomplished through long-term renewal contracts pursuant to Public Law 102-575. Prior to completion of negotiation of long-term renewal contracts, existing interim renewal water service contracts may be renewed through successive interim renewal of contracts.
3. Redwood Valley County WD, SRPA, California: Restructuring the repayment schedule pursuant to Public Law 100-516.
4. El Dorado County Water Agency, CVP, California: M&I water service contract to supplement existing water supply. Contract will provide for an amount not to exceed 15,000 acre-feet annually authorized by Public Law 101-514 (Section 206) for El Dorado County Water Agency. The supply will be subcontracted to El Dorado ID and Georgetown Divide Public Utility District.
5. Sutter Extension WD, Delano-Earlimart ID, Pixley ID, the State of California Department of Water Resources, and the State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife; CVP; California: Pursuant to Public Law 102-575, agreements with non-Federal entities for the purpose of providing funding for Central Valley Project Improvement Act refuge water conveyance and/or facilities improvement construction to deliver water for certain Federal wildlife refuges, State wildlife areas, and private wetlands.
6. Horsefly, Klamath, Langell Valley, and Tulelake IDs; Klamath Project; Oregon: Repayment contracts for SOD work on Clear Lake Dam. These districts will share in repayment of costs, and each district will have a separate contract.
7. Casitas Municipal WD, Ventura Project, California: Repayment contract for SOD work on Casitas Dam.
8. Warren Act Contracts, CVP, California: Execution of long-term Warren Act contracts (up to 40 years) with various entities for conveyance of nonproject water in the CVP.
9. Tuolumne Utilities District (formerly Tuolumne Regional WD), CVP, California: Long-term water service contract for up to 9,000 acre-feet from New Melones Reservoir, and possibly a long-term contract for storage of nonproject water in New Melones Reservoir.
10. Madera-Chowchilla Water and Power Authority, CVP, California: Agreement to transfer the OM&R and certain financial and administrative activities related to the Madera Canal and associated works.
11. Sacramento Suburban WD, CVP, California: Execution of a long-term Warren Act contract for conveyance of 29,000 acre-feet of nonproject water. The contract will allow CVP facilities to be used to deliver nonproject water provided from the Placer County Water Agency to the District for use within its service area.
12. Town of Fernley, State of California, City of Reno, City of Sparks, Washoe County, State of Nevada, Truckee-Carson ID, and any other local interest or Native American Tribal Interest who may have negotiated rights under Public Law 101-618; Nevada and California: Contract for the storage of non-Federal water in Truckee River reservoirs as authorized by Public Law 101-618 and the Preliminary Settlement Agreement. The contracts shall be consistent with the Truckee River Water Quality Settlement Agreement and the terms and conditions of the Truckee River Operating Agreement.
13. Delta Lands Reclamation District No. 770, CVP, California: Long-term Warren Act contract for conveyance of up to 300,000 acre-feet of nonproject flood flows via the Friant-Kern Canal for flood control purposes.
14. Pershing County Water Conservation District, Pershing County, and Lander County; Humboldt Project; Nevada: Title transfer of lands and features of the Humboldt Project.
15. Mendota Wildlife Area, CVP, California: Reimbursement agreement between the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Reclamation for conveyance service costs to deliver Level 2 water to the Mendota Wildlife Area during infrequent periods when the Mendota Pool is down due to unexpected but needed maintenance. This action is taken pursuant to Public Law 102-575, Title 34, Section 3406(d)(1), to meet full Level 2 water needs of the Mendota Wildlife Area.
16. San Luis WD, CVP, California: Proposed partial assignment of 2,400 acre-feet of the District's CVP supply to Santa Nella County WD for M&I use.
17. Placer County Water Agency, CVP, California: Proposed exchange agreement under section 14 of the 1939 Act to exchange up to 71,000 acre-feet annually of the Agency's American River Middle Fork Project water for use by Reclamation, for a like amount of CVP water from the Sacramento River for use by the Agency.
18. Irrigation contractors, Klamath Project, Oregon: Amendment of repayment contracts or negotiation of new contracts to allow for recovery of additional capital costs.
19. Orland Unit Water User's Association, Orland Project, California: Repayment contract for the SOD costs assigned to the irrigation of Stony Gorge Dam.
20. Goleta WD, Cachuma Project, California: An agreement to transfer title of the federally owned distribution system to the District subject to approved legislation.
21. City of Santa Barbara, Cachuma Project, California: Execution of a temporary contract and a long-term Warren Act contract with the City for conveyance of nonproject water in Cachuma Project facilities.
22. Water user entities responsible for payment of O&M costs for Reclamation projects in California, Nevada, and Oregon: Contracts for extraordinary maintenance and replacement funded pursuant to ARRA. Added costs to rates to be collected under irrigation and interim M&I ratesetting policies.
23. Water user entities responsible for payment of O&M costs for Reclamation projects in California, Nevada, and Oregon: Contracts for extraordinary maintenance and replacement funded pursuant to Subtitle G of Public Law 111-11.
24. Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board, Cachuma Project, California: Amendment to SOD contract No. 01-WC-20-2030 to provide for increased SOD costs associated with Bradbury Dam.
25. Reclamation will become signatory to a three-party conveyance agreement with the Cross Valley Contractors and the California State Department of Water Resources for conveyance of Cross Valley Contractors' CVP water supplies that are made available pursuant to long-term water service contracts.
26. Westlands WD, CVP, California: Negotiation and execution of a long-term repayment contract to provide reimbursement of costs related to the construction of drainage facilities. This action is being undertaken to satisfy the Federal Government's obligation to provide drainage service to Westlands located within the San Luis Unit of the CVP.
27. San Luis WD, Meyers Farms Family Trust, and Reclamation; CVP; California: Revision of an existing
28. San Joaquin Valley National Cemetery, U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs; Delta Division, CVP; California: Negotiation of a multi-year wheeling agreement with a retroactive effective date of 2011 is pending. A wheeling agreement with the State of California Department of Water Resources provides for the conveyance and delivery of CVP water through the State of California's water project facilities to the San Joaquin Valley National Cemetery.
29. Byron-Bethany ID, CVP, California: Negotiation of a multi-year wheeling agreement with a retroactive effective date is pending. A wheeling agreement with the State of California Department of Water Resources provides for the conveyance and delivery of CVP water through the State of California's water project facilities, to the Musco Family Olive Company, a customer of Byron-Bethany ID.
30. Contra Costa WD, CVP, California: Amendment to an existing O&M agreement to transfer O&M of the Contra Costa Rock Slough Fish Screen to the District. Initial construction funding provided through ARRA.
31. Irrigation water districts, individual irrigators and M&I water users, CVP, California: Temporary water service contracts for terms not to exceed 1 year for up to 100,000 acre-feet of surplus supplies of CVP water resulting from an unusually large water supply, not otherwise storable for project purposes, or from infrequent and otherwise unmanaged flood flows of short duration.
32. Irrigation water districts, individual irrigators, M&I and miscellaneous water users, CVP, California: Temporary Warren Act contracts for terms up to 5 years providing for use of excess capacity in CVP facilities for annual quantities exceeding 10,000 acre-feet.
33. City of Redding, CVP, California: Proposed partial assignment of 30 acre-feet of the City of Redding's CVP water supply to the City of Shasta Lake for M&I use.
34. Langell Valley ID, Klamath Project; Oregon: Title transfer of lands and facilities of the Klamath Project.
35. Sacramento River Division, CVP, California: Administrative assignments of various Sacramento River Settlement Contracts.
36. California Department of Fish and Game, CVP, California: To extend the term of and amend the existing water service contract for the Department's San Joaquin Fish Hatchery to allow an increase from 35 to 60 cubic feet per second of continuous flow to pass through the Hatchery prior to it returning to the San Joaquin River.
37. Orland Unit Water User's Association, Orland Project, California: Title transfer of lands and features of the Orland Project.
38. Santa Clara Valley WD, CVP, California: Second amendment to Santa Clara Valley WD's water service contract to add CVP-wide form of contract language providing for mutually agreed upon point or points of delivery.
39. PacifiCorp, Klamath Project, Oregon and California: Transfer of O&M of Link River Dam and associated facilities. Contract will allow for the continued O&M by PacifiCorp.
40. Tulelake ID, Klamath Project, Oregon and California: Transfer of O&M of Station 48 and gate on Drain No. 1, Lost River Diversion Channel.
41. Fresno County Waterworks No. 18; Friant Division, CVP; California: Execution of an agreement to provide for the O&M of select Federal facilities by Fresno County Waterworks No. 18.
42. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tulelake ID; Klamath Project; Oregon and California: Water service contract for deliveries to Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge, including transfer of O&M responsibilities for the P Canal system.
43. Tulelake ID, Klamath Project, Oregon and California: Amendment of repayment contract to eliminate reimbursement for P Canal O&M costs.
44. East Bay Municipal Utility District, CVP, California: Long-term Warren Act contract for storage and conveyance of up to 47,000 acre-feet annually.
45. Gray Lodge Wildlife Area, CVP, California: Reimbursement agreement between the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Reclamation for groundwater pumping costs. Groundwater will provide a portion of Gray Lodge Wildlife Area's Central Valley Improvement Act Level 4 water supplies. This action is taken pursuant to Public Law 102-575, Title 34, Section 3406(d)(1, 2 and 5), to meet full Level 4 water needs of the Gray Lodge Wildlife Area.
46. State of Nevada, Newlands Project, Nevada: Title transfer of lands and features of the Carson Lake and Pasture.
47. Washoe County Water Conservation District, Truckee Storage Project, Nevada: Repayment contract for costs associated with SOD work on Boca Dam.
48. Del Puerto WD, CVP, California: Negotiation of a short-term wheeling agreement with the State of California, Department of Water Resources to provide for the conveyance and delivery of CVP water through the State of California's water project facilities to Del Puerto Water District via a state water project contractor.
1. Milton and Jean Phillips, BCP, Arizona: Develop a Colorado River water delivery contract for 60 acre-feet of Colorado River water per year as recommended by the Arizona Department of Water Resources.
2. Gila Project Works, Gila Project, Arizona: Perform title transfer of facilities and certain lands in the Wellton-Mohawk Division from the United States to the Wellton-Mohawk IDD.
3. Bard WD, Yuma Project, California: Supersede and replace the District's O&M contract for the Yuma Project, California, Reservation Division, Indian Unit, to reflect that appropriated funds are no longer available, and to specify an alternate process for transfer of funds. In addition, other miscellaneous processes required for Reclamation's contractual administration and oversight will be updated to ensure the Federal Indian Trust obligation for reservation water and land are met.
4. Ogram Farms, BCP, Arizona: Assign the contract to the new landowners and revise Exhibit A of the contract to change the contract service area and points of diversion/delivery.
5. Ogram Boys Enterprises, Inc., BCP, Arizona: Revise Exhibit A of the contract to change the contract service area and points of diversion/delivery.
6. City of Yuma, BCP, Arizona: Enter into a long-term consolidated contract with the City for delivery of its Colorado River water entitlement.
7. Gold Dome Mining Corporation and Wellton-Mohawk IDD, Gila Project, Arizona: Terminate contract No. 0-07-30-W0250 pursuant to Articles 11(d) and 11(e).
8. Estates of Anna R. Roy and Edward P. Roy, Gila Project, Arizona: Terminate contract No. 6-07-30-W0124 pursuant to Article 9(c).
9. Reclamation, Davis Dam (Davis Dam) and Big Bend WD; BCP; Arizona and Nevada: Enter into proposed “Agreement for the Diversion, Treatment, and Delivery of Colorado River Water” in order for the District to
10. Cibola Valley IDD and Western Water, LLC, BCP, Arizona: Execute a proposed partial assignment of fourth priority Colorado River water in the amount of 621.48 acre-feet per year from the District to Western Water, LLC and a new Colorado River water delivery contract with Western Water, LLC.
11. Red River Land Company, LLC; BCP; Arizona: Review and approve a proposed partial assignment of 300 acre-feet per year of Arizona fourth priority Colorado River water entitlement from Cibola Valley IDD to Red River and execute the associated amendment to Cibola Valley IDD's contract and enter into a Colorado River water delivery contract with Red River.
12. Mohave County Water Authority, BCP, Arizona: Execute Exhibit B, Revision 6 that will supersede and replace Exhibit B, Revision 5 to the Authority's Colorado River water delivery contract in order to update the annual diversion amounts to be used within each of the contract service areas.
13. Rayner Ranches, BCP, Arizona: Review and approve a proposed assignment of Rayner Ranches Colorado River water delivery contract for 4,500 acre-feet per year to GM Gabrych Family, LP and execute a new Colorado River water delivery contract with GM Gabrych Family, LP.
14. Sarah S. Chesney, BCP, Arizona: Review and approve a proposed assignment of Sarah S. Chesney's contract for the conveyance of Colorado River water from Sarah S. Chesney to WPI II—COL FARM AZ, LLC.
15. San Carlos Apache Tribe and the Town of Gilbert, CAP, Arizona: Execute a proposed 100-year lease not to exceed 5,925 acre-feet per year of CAP water from the Tribe to Gilbert.
16. San Carlos Apache Tribe and the Town of Gilbert, CAP, Arizona: Execute amendment No. 7 to a CAP water lease to extend the term of the lease in order for San Carlos Apache Tribe to lease 20,000 acre-feet of its CAP water to the Town of Gilbert during calendar year 2018.
17. Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation and the Town of Gilbert, CAP, Arizona: Execute amendment No. 6 to a CAP water lease to extend the term of the lease in order for Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation to lease 13,933 acre-feet of its CAP water to the Town of Gilbert during calendar year 2018.
18. San Carlos Apache Tribe and the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, CAP, Arizona: Execute a CAP water lease in order for the San Carlos Apache Tribe to lease 500 acre-feet of its CAP water to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe during calendar year 2018.
19. San Carlos Apache Tribe and Freeport Minerals Corporation, CAP, Arizona: Execute a CAP water lease in order for the San Carlos Apache Tribe to lease 17,010 acre-feet of its CAP water to Freeport Minerals Corporation during calendar year 2018.
1. (11) Reclamation, Arizona Department of Water Resources, Arizona Water Banking Authority, Central Arizona Water Conservation District, Southern Nevada Water Authority, and The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California; BCP; Arizona, California and Nevada: Begin negotiations to enter into proposed “Storage and Interstate Release Agreement(s)” for creation, offstream storage, and release of unused basic or surplus Colorado River apportionment within the lower division states pursuant to 43 CFR part 414.
1. (23) Imperial ID, Lower Colorado River Water Supply Project, California: Amend the agreement between Reclamation and Imperial ID to extend the term for the funding of design, construction, and installation of power facilities for the Lower Colorado Water Supply Project. Contract executed October 25, 2017.
1. Individual irrigators, M&I, and miscellaneous water users; Initial Units, CRSP; Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico: Temporary (interim) water service contracts for surplus project water for irrigation or M&I use to provide up to 10,000 acre-feet of water annually for terms up to 10 years; long-term contracts for similar service for up to 1,000 acre-feet of water annually.
2. Contracts with various water user entities responsible for payment of O&M costs for Reclamation projects in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming: Contracts for extraordinary maintenance and replacement funded pursuant to Subtitle G of Public Law 111-11 to be executed as project progresses.
3. Middle Rio Grande Project, New Mexico: Reclamation continues annual leasing of water from various San Juan-Chama Project contractors to stabilize flows in a critical reach of the Rio Grande in order to meet the needs of irrigators and preserve habitat for the silvery minnow. Reclamation leased approximately 15,067 acre-feet of water from San Juan-Chama Project contractors in 2017.
4. Bridger Valley Water Conservancy District, Lyman Project, Wyoming: The District has requested that its Meeks Cabin repayment contract be amended from two 25-year contacts to one 40-year contract, or that the second 25-year contract be negotiated, as outlined in the original contract.
5. Strawberry High Line Canal Company, Strawberry Valley Project; Utah: The Strawberry High Line Canal Company has requested to allow for the carriage of nonproject water held by McMullin Orchards in the High Line Canal.
6. Grand Valley Water Users Association and Orchard Mesa ID, Grand Valley Project, Colorado: A contract under the Upper Colorado Recovery Program for delivery of non-project water to the Grand Valley Power Plant. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will also be a party to the contract.
7. Eden Valley IDD, Eden Project, Wyoming: The District proposes to raise the level of Big Sandy Dam to fully perfect its water rights. A supplemental O&M agreement will be necessary to obtain the authorization to modify Federal facilities.
8. Tri-County Water Conservancy District, Dallas Creek Project, Colorado: A contract under the Upper Colorado Recovery Program to construct and transfer O&M of a fish barrier net at Dallas Creek Project. The State of Colorado, Colorado Parks and Wildlife Department will also be a party to the contract.
9. Dolores Water Conservancy District, Dolores Project, Colorado: The District has requested a contract amendment to update articles related to releases for downstream uses.
10. Newton Water Users Association, Newton Project; Utah: The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources desires to install a fish screen on the outlet works of Newton Dam. This requires an agreement to approve modification to Federal Reclamation facilities.
11. Pojoaque Valley ID, San Juan-Chama Project, New Mexico: An amendment to the repayment contract to reflect the changed allocations as a result of the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act (Title VI of the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-291, December 8, 2010) is being discussed.
12. South Cache Water Users Association, Hyrum Project, Utah: Problems with the spillway at Hyrum Dam require the construction of a new spillway under the SOD Act, as amended. A repayment contract is
13. Uintah Water Conservancy District; Vernal Unit, CUP; Utah: Due to sloughing on the face of Steinaker Dam north of Vernal, Utah, a SOD fix authorized under the SOD Act may be necessary to perform the various functions needed to bring Steinaker Reservoir back to full capacity. This will require a repayment contract with the United States.
14. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Salt River Project; Glen Canyon Unit, CRSP; Arizona: The District has requested an extension of its existing contract from 2034 through 2044. This action is awaiting further development by the District.
15. Dolores Water Conservancy District, Dolores Project, Colorado: The District has requested a water service contract for 1,402 acre-feet of newly identified project water for irrigation. The proposed water service contract will provide 417 acre-feet of project water for irrigation of the Ute Enterprise and 985 acre-feet for use by the District's full-service irrigators.
16. Utah Division of State Parks, Utah: Requested an early renewal of its 11 State Parks Agreements for recreation management at various Reclamation Reservoirs.
17. State of Wyoming, Seedskadee Project; Wyoming. The Wyoming Water Development Commission is interested in purchasing an additional 65,000 acre-feet of M&I water from Fontenelle Reservoir.
18. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uinta and Ouray Reservation, CUP, Utah: The Ute Indian Tribe of the Uinta and Ouray Reservation has requested the use of excess capacity in the Strawberry Aqueduct and Collection System, as authorized in the CUP Completion Act legislation.
19. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uinta and Ouray Reservation; Flaming Gorge Unit, CRSP; Utah: As part of discussions on settlement of a potential compact, the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uinta and Ouray Reservation has indicated interest in storage of its potential water right in Flaming Gorge Reservoir.
20. State of Utah; Flaming Gorge Unit, CRSP; Utah: The State of Utah has requested contracts that will allow the full development and use of the CUP Ultimate Phase water right of 158,000 acre-feet of depletion, which was previously assigned to the State of Utah.
21. Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, Weber Basin Project, Utah: The District has requested permission to install a low-flow hydro-electric generation plant at Causey Reservoir to take advantage of winter releases. This will likely be accomplished through a supplemental O&M contract.
22. Central Utah Water Conservancy District; Bonneville Unit, CUP; Utah: The District has received a request to convert 300 acre-feet of irrigation water in Wasatch County to M&I purposes. This will require an amended block notice.
23. Mancos Water Conservancy District, Mancos Project, Colorado: Proposed preliminary lease and funding agreement for preliminary work associated with potential lease of power privilege.
24. Mancos Water Conservancy District, Mancos Project, Colorado: Proposed funding agreement for preliminary work associated with the evaluation of title transfer.
25. Collbran Water Conservancy District, Collbran Project, Colorado: Laramie Energy has requested a water exchange contract.
26. Mancos Water Conservancy District, Mancos Project, Colorado: The District and Reclamation are discussing an amendment to the Public Law 111-11 repayment contract for rehabilitation of the Jackson Gulch facilities to continue to facilitate the District's ability to receive funding under the legislation.
27. Collbran Water Conservancy District, Collbran Project, Colorado: The District has requested an exchange contract with William Morse for exchange of water on the Collbran Project.
28. Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Animas-La Plata Project, Colorado: Ute Mountain Ute Tribe has requested a water delivery contract for 16,525 acre-feet of M&I water; contract terms to be consistent with the Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000 (Title III of Pub. L. 106-554).
29. Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, New Mexico: Reclamation continues negotiations on an OM&R transfer contract with the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority pursuant to Public Law 111-11, Section 10602(f) which transfers responsibilities to carry out the OM&R of transferred works of the Project; ensures the continuation of the intended benefits of the Project; distribution of water; and sets forth the allocation and payment of annual OM&R costs of the Project.
30. Animas-La Plata Project, Colorado-New Mexico: (a) Navajo Nation title transfer agreement for the Navajo Nation Municipal Pipeline for facilities and land outside the corporate boundaries of the City of Farmington, New Mexico; contract terms to be consistent with the Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000 (Title III of Pub. L. 106-554) and the Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Projects Act (Title X of Pub. L. 111-11); (b) City of Farmington, New Mexico, title transfer agreement for the Navajo Nation Municipal Pipeline for facilities and land inside the corporate boundaries of the City of Farmington; New Mexico, contract terms to be consistent with the Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000 (Title III of Pub. L. 106-554) and the Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Projects Act (Title X of Pub. L. 111-11); and (c) Operations agreement among the United States, Navajo Nation, and City of Farmington for the Navajo Nation Municipal Pipeline pursuant to Public Law 111-11, Section 10605(b)(1) that sets forth any terms and conditions that secures an operations protocol for the M&I water supply.
31. Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, Weber Basin Project, Utah: The District has requested a contract to allow the storage of Weber Basin Project water in Smith Morehouse Reservoir under the authority of Section 14 of the Reclamation Projects Act of 1939.
32. Strawberry High Line Canal Company, Strawberry Valley Project; Utah: The Strawberry High Line Canal Company has requested a conversion of up to 20,000 acre-feet of irrigation water to be allowed for miscellaneous use.
33. Emery County Water Conservancy District, Emery County Project, Utah: The District has requested to convert 79 acre-feet of Cottonwood Creek Consolidated Irrigation Company water from irrigation to M&I uses.
34. City of Page, Arizona; Glen Canyon Unit, CRSP; Arizona: Request for a long-term contract for 975 acre-feet of water for municipal purposes.
1. (11) Newton Water Users Association, Newton Project; Utah: The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources desires to install a fish screen on the outlet works of Newton Dam. This requires a supplementary O&M agreement to approve modification to Federal Reclamation facilities.
2. (13) Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, A.V. Watkins Dam, Utah: The United States intends to enter into an implementation agreement with the District giving the District the authority to modify Federal facilities to raise the crest of A.V. Watkins Dam.
1. (5) Ephraim Irrigation Company, Sanpete Project, Utah: The Company proposes to enclose the Ephraim Tunnel with a 54-inch pipe. A supplemental O&M agreement will be necessary to
2. (35) VBC Owners Association; Aspinall Unit, CRSP; Colorado: The association has requested a long-term water service contract for 8 acre-feet of water out of the Aspinall Unit, CRSP. Contract executed September 11, 2017.
3. (39) Florida Water Conservancy District, Florida Project, Colorado: The United States and the District, pursuant to Section 4 of the CRSP, and subsection 9(c)(2) of the Reclamation Projects Act of 1939, propose to execute a water service contract for 2,500 acre-feet of Florida Project water for M&I and other miscellaneous beneficial uses, other than commercial agricultural irrigation, within the District boundaries in La Plata County, Colorado. Contract executed October 18, 2017.
1. Irrigation, M&I, and miscellaneous water users; Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming: Water service contracts for the sale, conveyance, storage, and exchange of surplus project water and nonproject water for irrigation or M&I use to provide up to 10,000 acre-feet of water annually for a term of up to 1 year, or up to 1,000 acre-feet of water annually for a term of up to 40 years.
2. Water user entities responsible for payment of O&M costs for Reclamation projects in Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming: Contracts for extraordinary maintenance and replacement funded pursuant to Subtitle G of Public Law 111-11.
3. Green Mountain Reservoir, Colorado-Big Thompson Project, Colorado: Water service contracts for irrigation and M&I; contracts for the sale of water from the marketable yield to water users within the Colorado River Basin of western Colorado.
4. Garrison Diversion Conservancy District, Garrison Diversion Unit, P-SMBP, North Dakota: Intent to modify long-term water service contract to add additional irrigated acres.
5. Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, Colorado: Consideration of excess capacity contracting in the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.
6. Colorado-Big Thompson Project, Colorado: Consideration of excess capacity contracting in the Colorado-Big Thompson Project.
7. Roger W. Evans (Individual); Boysen Unit, P-SMBP; Wyoming: Renewal of long-term water service contract.
8. Busk-Ivanhoe, Inc., Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, Colorado: Contract for long-term carriage and storage, and/or a new contract for an additional use of water.
9. State of Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks; Glen Elder Unit, P-SMBP; Kansas: Intent to enter into a contract for the remaining conservation storage in Waconda Lake for recreation and fish and wildlife purposes.
10. Arkansas Valley Conduit, Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, Colorado: Consideration of a repayment contract for the Arkansas Valley Conduit, and signing a contract to use infrastructure owned by the Pueblo Board of Water Works.
11. Donala Water and Sanitation District, Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, Colorado: Consideration of a long-term excess capacity contract.
12. Purgatoire Water Conservancy District, Trinidad Project, Colorado: Consideration of a request to amend the contract.
13. Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District, Norman Project, Oklahoma: Amend existing contract No. 14-06-500-590 to execute a separate contract(s) to allow for importation and storage of nonproject water in accordance with the Lake Thunderbird Efficient Use Act of 2012.
14. Tom Green County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1, San Angelo Project, Texas: Consideration of a potential contract(s) for use of excess capacity by individual landowner(s) for irrigation purposes.
15. Western Heart River ID; Heart Butte Unit, P-SMBP; North Dakota: Consideration of amending the long-term irrigation repayment contract and project-use power contract to include additional acres.
16. Dickinson-Heart River Mutual Aid Corporation; Dickinson Unit, Heart Division; P-SMBP; North Dakota: Consideration of amending the long-term irrigation water service contract to modify the acres irrigated.
17. Buford-Trenton ID, Buford-Trenton Project, P-SMBP; North Dakota: Consideration of amending the long-term irrigation power repayment contract and project-use power contract to include additional acres.
18. Milk River Project, Montana: Proposed amendment to contracts to reflect current landownership.
19. Glen Elder ID No. 8; Glen Elder Unit, P-SMBP; Kansas: Consideration to renew long-term water service contract No. 2-07-60-W0855.
20. Town of Estes Park, Colorado-Big Thompson Project, Colorado: Consideration of a renewal of contract with the Town of Estes Park.
21. Bureau of Land Management, Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, Colorado: Consideration of excess capacity contracting to store water in the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.
22. Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, Colorado: Consideration of amending contract No. 5-07-70-W0086 and convert or renew contract No. 5-07-70-W0086.
23. Fresno Dam, Milk River Project, Montana: Consideration of contract(s) for repayment of SOD costs.
24. Western Heart River ID; Heart Butte Unit, P-SMBP; North Dakota: Consideration of contract for repayment of SOD costs.
25. Keyhole Country Club; Keyhole Unit, P-SMBP; North Dakota: Consideration of renewal of contract No. 8-07-60-WS042.
26. Canyon Ferry Water Users Association; Canyon Ferry Unit, P-SMBP;
Montana: Consideration for new long-term repayment contract.
27. City of Thermopolis; Boysen Unit, P-SMBP; Wyoming: Consideration for renewal of long-term water service contract No. 8-07-WS050 with the City of Thermopolis.
28. Kansas Bostwick ID, Bostwick Division, P-SMBP, Kansas: Consideration of an excess capacity contract to store water in Harlan County Lake.
1. (7) Northern Integrated Supply Project, Colorado-Big Thompson Project, Colorado: Consideration of a new long-term contract with approximately 15 regional water suppliers and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District for the Northern Integrated Supply Project.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The Bureau of Reclamation has made available to the public the Water Management Plans for twelve entities. For the purpose of this announcement, Water Management Plans (Plans) are considered the same as Water Conservation Plans. Reclamation is publishing this notice in order to allow the public an opportunity to review the Plans and comment on the preliminary determinations.
Submit written comments on the preliminary determinations on or before June 15, 2018.
Send written comments to Ms. Charlene Stemen, Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottage Way, MP-400, Sacramento, CA 95825; or via email at
To be placed on a mailing list for any subsequent information, please contact Ms. Charlene Stemen at
Section 3405(e) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Title 34 Pub. L. 102-575), requires the Secretary of the Interior to, amongst other things, “develop criteria for evaluating the adequacy of all water conservation plans” developed by certain contractors. According to Section 3405(e)(1), these criteria must promote, “the highest level of water use efficiency reasonably achievable by project contractors using best available cost-effective technology and best management practices.” In accordance with this legislative mandate, the Bureau of Reclamation developed and published the Criteria for Evaluating Water Management Plans (Criteria). Each of the twelve entities listed below developed a Plan that Reclamation evaluated and preliminarily determined meets the requirements of the Criteria. The following Plans are available for review:
We invite the public to comment on our preliminary (
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review. 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 we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) proposes to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 16, 2018.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by either of the following methods listed below:
• Electronically go to
• Email
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Nicole Mason by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comments addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of BSEE; (2) Will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) Is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) How might BSEE enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) How might BSEE minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Post-Approval Requirements for the Exploration Plans, Development and
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the presiding administrative law judge has issued a Final Initial Determination and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting comments on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief, specifically a limited exclusion order directed to respondents Toshiba Corporation of Tokyo, Japan; Toshiba Memory Corporation of Tokyo, Japan; Toshiba America, Inc. of New York, New York; Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. of Irvine, California; Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. of Irvine, California; and Toshiba Information Equipment (Philippines), Inc. of Binan, Philippines, and cease and desist orders directed to the domestic respondents. This notice is soliciting public interest comments from the public only. Parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to Commission rules.
Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3042. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that if the Commission finds a violation it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States:
unless, after considering the effect of such exclusion upon the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States consumers, it finds that such articles should not be excluded from entry.
The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in these investigations. Accordingly, parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4). In addition, members of the public are hereby invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the administrative law judge's Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding issued in this investigation on May 10, 2018. Comments should address whether issuance of a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders 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 recommended orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended 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 recommended exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders would impact consumers in the United States.
Written submissions from the public must be filed no later than by close of business on June 5, 2018.
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 section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1016”) 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 in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) Advisory Board. The meeting will be open to the public, with one portion closed to the public.
(1) Agency Report from the NIC Acting Director,
(2) briefings on current activities and future goals, and
(3) updates from partner agencies and associations. On June 22, 2018, the Advisory Board will discuss the NIC Director candidates, the status of the position, and the related appointment process.
9:30 a.m., Tuesday, May 22, 2018.
NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20594.
The one item is open to the public.
The press and public may enter the NTSB Conference Center one hour prior to the meeting for set up and seating.
Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Rochelle McCallister at (202) 314-6305 or by email at
The public may view the meeting via a live or archived webcast by accessing a link under “News & Events” on the NTSB home page at
Schedule updates, including weather-related cancellations, are also available at
Candi Bing at (202) 314-6403 or by email at
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Environmental impact statement; public scoping comment meetings; extension of comment period.
On March 30, 2018, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published in the
The due date of comments requested in the document published on March 30, 2018 (83 FR 13802) is extended. Comments should be filed no later than July 30, 2018. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Jill Caverly, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7674; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0052 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0052 in your comment submission. Written comments may be submitted during the scoping period as described in the
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission, because the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
On March 30, 2018 (83 FR 13802), the NRC published in the
Persons interested in attending these meetings should check the NRC's Public Meeting Schedule web page at
The NRC is extending the public comment scoping period for an additional 60 days, to July 30, 2018.
Members of the public have requested the ability to submit their scoping comments to an NRC email address, in addition to the methods previously offered through the mail and through the Federal Rulemaking website. Accordingly, the NRC will now also accept comments submitted by email to
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Peace Corps.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Peace Corps will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment in the
Submit comments on or before July 16, 2018.
Comments should be addressed to Virginia Burke, FOIA/Privacy Act Officer. Virginia Burke can be contacted by telephone at 202-692-1236 or email at
Virginia Burke can be contacted by telephone at 202-692-1236 or email at
a.
b.
c.
d.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice of intent to request extension of OMB approval, with modifications.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) intends to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) extend approval, with modifications, to a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of the information collection is to enable PBGC to pay benefits to participants and beneficiaries. This notice informs the public of PBGC's intent and solicits public comment on the collection of information, as modified.
Comments must be submitted by July 16, 2018.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
All comments received must include the agency's name (Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, or PBGC) and the OMB Control Number for the information collection (OMB Control No. 1212-0055). All comments received will be posted without change to PBGC's website,
Stephanie Cibinic (
This information collection is needed to pay participants and beneficiaries who may be entitled to pension benefits from plans that have terminated. It consists of information participants and beneficiaries are asked to provide in connection with an application for benefits. In addition, in some instances, PBGC requests individuals to provide identifying information so that it may determine whether the individuals may be entitled to benefits. All requested information is needed so that PBGC may determine benefit entitlements and make appropriate payments.
This information collection includes My Pension Benefit Account (MyPBA), an application on PBGC's website,
PBGC is proposing to revise one form in this collection, the Power of Attorney Form (Form 715). The proposed revision would include:
• Features previously unavailable—granting a durable power of attorney (DPOA) in addition to a nondurable power of attorney (NDPOA), and allowing a principal to name up to three agents to act on her behalf with PBGC (and to designate whether the agents have independent or joint authority), whereas the current form only has room for one agent to be named;
• Features that would protect the principal—heightened requirements for granting authority and for executing the document (
• A “Notice to the Principal,” to alert the principal about what powers she is granting to a designated agent, and an “Agent's Acknowledgement” to inform the agent about her duties and liabilities with respect to handling the principal's affairs.
PBGC believes these revisions provide greater flexibility and greater protections against fraud for customers using the Form 715. Customers are not required to use this form and can use other DPOAs or NDPOAs that comply with applicable state laws.
The existing collection of information was approved under OMB control number 1212-0055 (expires March 31, 2019). PBGC intends to request that OMB extend its approval (with modifications) for three years. 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.
PBGC estimates that it will receive 72,010 benefit application or information forms annually. The total annual burden associated with this collection of information is estimated to be 56,746 hours (approximately one hour for benefit applications and 30 minutes for information forms) and an estimated $56,711, which is the total average maximum cost of notary services for spousal consents on benefit applications and for the Form 715. PBGC estimates that from the above totals, 710 Form 715s will be filed annually at approximately 355 hours and $2,485.
PBGC is soliciting public comments to—
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Issued in Washington, DC, by
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 11, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 11, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Notice is hereby given in accordance with Public Law 92-463 that the Actuarial Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on June 5, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. at the office of the Chief Actuary of the U. S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois, on the conduct of the 27th Actuarial Valuation of the Railroad Retirement System. The agenda for this meeting will include a discussion of the results and presentation of the 27th Actuarial Valuation. The text and tables which constitute the Valuation will have been prepared in draft form for review by the Committee. It is expected that this will be the last meeting of the Committee before publication of the Valuation.
The meeting will be open to the public. Persons wishing to submit written statements or make oral presentations should address their communications or notices to the RRB Actuarial Advisory Committee, c/o Chief Actuary, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092.
For the Board.
On March 20, 2018, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (“Phlx” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend the market maker obligations and quoting requirements for an “electronic ROT,” which would be defined to include an SQT,
The Exchange proposes first to amend the generalized description of the market making obligations of an electronic ROT on the Exchange. Today, the Exchange provides that transactions of a Specialist and an ROT should constitute a course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and that those members should not enter into transactions or make bids or offers that are inconsistent with such a course of dealings.
In addition, ordinarily during trading hours, an electronic ROT would be required to: (i) Maintain a two-sided market in those options in which the electronic ROT is registered to trade, in a manner that enhances the depth, liquidity, and competitiveness of the market; (ii) engage, to a reasonable degree under the existing circumstances, in dealings for its own account when there exists, or it is reasonably anticipating that there will exist, a lack of price continuity, a temporary disparity between the supply of (or demand for) a particular option contract, or a temporary distortion of price relationships between option contracts of the same class; (iii) compete with other electronic ROTs in all options in all capacities in which the electronic ROT is registered to trade; (iv) make markets that will be honored for the number of contracts entered into the System in all options in which the electronic ROT is registered to trade; (v) update quotations in response to changed market conditions in all options in which the electronic ROT is registered to trade; (vi) maintain active markets in all options in which the electronic ROT is registered; and (vii) honor all orders attributed to the electronic ROT that the System routes to away markets pursuant to Phlx Rule 1080(m).
The proposed rules provide further that, if Phlx Regulation found any substantial or continued failure to engage in a course of dealings as described above, the electronic ROT would be subject to disciplinary action or suspension or revocation of registration in one or more of the securities in which the electronic ROT is registered. The proposed rule stipulates that nothing in the rule would limit any other power of the Board under the rules, or procedures of the Exchange, with respect to the registration of an ROT or any violation by an ROT pursuant to the rule.
The Exchange further proposes to amend the quoting requirements for electronic ROTs. Electronic ROTs would be required to enter bids and offers for the options to which they are registered, except in an assigned options series listed intra-day on the Exchange. On a daily basis, an electronic ROT would be required to make markets consistent with the applicable quoting requirements, as described further below. A member organization would be required to meet each quoting requirement separately depending on the role that the member organization plays with respect to different options series.
The proposed rules would state explicitly that an electronic ROT's bid and offer for a series of options contracts would need to be accompanied by the number of contracts at that price that the electronic ROT is willing to buy or sell. Similar to under current rules, the best bid or best offer submitted by an electronic ROT would be required to have a size of not less than the minimum number of contracts determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis, which minimum will be at least one contract.
With respect to the specific quoting requirements, currently, the Exchange requires an SQT and an RSQT to quote two-sided markets in not less than 60% of the series in which such SQT or RSQT is assigned. To satisfy these requirements when quoting a series, an SQT or RSQT must quote such series 90% of the trading day (as a percentage of the total number of minutes in such trading day) or such higher percentage as the Exchange may announce in advance. These obligations apply collectively to all appointed issues, rather than on an issue-by-issue basis.
In addition, currently, the Exchange requires a Specialist, including an RSQT functioning as a Remote Specialist, to quote two-sided markets in the lesser of 99% of the series or 100% of the series minus one call-put pair in each option in which such Specialist is assigned. To satisfy these requirements when quoting a series, a Specialist must quote such series 90% of the trading day (as a percentage of the total number of minutes in such trading day) or such
Further, currently, the Exchange requires a Directed SQT and a Directed RSQT to quote two-sided markets in the lesser of 99% of the series listed on the Exchange or 100% of the series listed on the Exchange minus one call-put pair,
The Exchange states that the proposal better accommodates the occasional issues that may arise in a particular series, arguing that the existing quoting requirements may at times discourage liquidity in particular options series because an electronic ROT is forced to focus on a momentary lapse, rather than using the appropriate resources to focus on the options series that need and consume additional liquidity.
For SQTs, RSQTs, Directed SQTs, and Directed RSQTs, the Exchange would continue to exclude from the above quoting requirements any Quarterly Option Series, Adjusted Option Series, and any option series until the time to expiration for such series is less than nine months.
The Exchange would calculate compliance with the above quoting requirements by (i) taking the total number of seconds the member organization disseminates quotes in each assigned option series;
The Exchange states that the proposed quoting requirements as described above are similar to those of another options exchange.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Exchange proposes to add specificity regarding the general description in its rules regarding market maker obligations of an electronic ROT. The Commission finds that the changes it is making in this regard are consistent with the Act and notes that, as the Exchange maintains, the changes are consistent with the rules of another options exchange.
The Exchange proposes to reduce the specific quoting requirements for electronic ROTs of the various types. SQTs and RSQTs associated with the same member organization would be collectively required to provide two-sided quotations in 60% of the cumulative number of seconds for which that member organization's assigned option series are open for trading. Specialists (including Remote Specialists) associated with the same member organization would be collectively required to provide two-sided quotations in 90% of the cumulative number of seconds for which that member organization's assigned option series are open for trading. Similarly, Directed SQTs and Directed RSQTs associated with the same member organization would be collectively required to provide two-sided quotations in 90% of the cumulative number of seconds for which that member organization's assigned option series are open for trading. The Exchange would be able to designate a higher percentage for any of these quoting requirements by announcing such percentage in advance.
These quoting requirements would apply to all of an electronic ROT's assigned options on a daily basis. These quoting requirements would be reviewed on a monthly basis, and would allow the Exchange to review the electronic ROT's daily compliance in the aggregate and determine the appropriate disciplinary action for single or multiple failures to comply with the continuous quoting requirement during the month period. The Commission notes that the proposed rules provide that determining compliance with the continuous quoting requirements on a monthly basis would not relieve the electronic ROT of the obligation to provide continuous two-sided quotes on a daily basis, nor would it prohibit the Exchange from taking disciplinary action against an electronic ROT for failing to meet the continuous quoting requirements each trading day.
The Commission finds that the proposed changes to the quoting requirements of electronic ROTs are consistent with the Act. The Exchange believes that the revised requirements will enable electronic ROTs to focus on the options series that need and consume more liquidity than others. To the extent this is true, the proposal will enhance trading opportunities on the Exchange. Moreover, the Commission believes that, although the proposal would reduce the quoting requirements for the various electronic ROTs from their current levels, the proposed changes are consistent, as the Exchange argues, with the market maker quoting requirements in place on other markets.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application for an order pursuant to: (a) Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) granting an exemption from sections 18(f) and 21(b) of the Act; (b) section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act granting an exemption from section 12(d)(1) of the Act; (c) sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act granting an exemption from sections 17(a)(1), 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Act; and (d) section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint arrangements and transactions. Applicants request an order that would supersede a prior order and that would permit certain registered management investment companies to participate in a joint lending and borrowing facility.
Franklin Alternative Strategies Funds, Franklin California Tax-Free Income Fund, Franklin California Tax-Free Trust, Franklin Custodian Funds, Franklin ETF Trust, Franklin Federal Tax-Free Income Fund, Franklin Floating Rate Master Trust, Franklin Fund Allocator Series, Franklin Global Trust, Franklin Gold and Precious Metals Fund, Franklin High Income Trust, Franklin Investors Securities Trust, Franklin Managed Trust, Franklin U.S. Government Money Fund, Franklin Municipal Securities Trust, Franklin Mutual Series Funds, Franklin New York Tax-Free Income Fund, Franklin New York Tax-Free Trust, Franklin Real Estate Securities Trust, Franklin Strategic Mortgage Portfolio, Franklin Strategic Series, Franklin Tax-Free Trust, Franklin Templeton ETF Trust, Franklin Templeton Global Trust, Franklin Templeton International Trust, Franklin Templeton Money Fund Trust, Franklin Templeton Variable Insurance Products Trust, Franklin Value Investors Trust, Institutional Fiduciary Trust, Templeton China World Fund, Templeton Developing Markets Trust, Templeton Funds, Templeton Global Investment Trust, Templeton Global Opportunities Trust, Templeton Global Smaller Companies Fund, Templeton Growth
The application was filed on September 14, 2017, and amended on March 9, 2018.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on June 4, 2018, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: Craig S. Tyle, Esq., Franklin Templeton Investments, One Franklin Parkway, San Mateo, CA 94403 and Bruce G. Leto, Esq., Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP, 2600 One Commerce Square, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Jean E. Minarick, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6811, or Kaitlin C. Bottock, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Applicants request an order that would permit the applicants to participate in an interfund lending facility where each Fund could lend money directly to and borrow money directly from other Funds to cover unanticipated cash shortfalls, such as unanticipated redemptions or trade fails.
2. Applicants anticipate that the proposed facility would provide a borrowing Fund with a source of liquidity at a rate lower than the bank borrowing rate at times when the cash position of the Fund is insufficient to meet temporary cash requirements. In addition, Funds making short-term cash loans directly to other Funds would earn interest at a rate higher than they otherwise could obtain from investing their cash in repurchase agreements or certain other short term money market instruments. Thus, applicants assert that the facility would benefit both borrowing and lending Funds.
3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application. Among others, each Adviser, through a designated committee, would administer the facility as a disinterested fiduciary as part of its duties under the investment advisory and administrative agreements with the Funds and would receive no additional fee as compensation for its services in connection with the administration of the facility. The facility would be subject to oversight and certain approvals by the Funds' Board, including, among others, approval of the interest rate formula and of the method for allocating loans across Funds, as well as review of the process in place to evaluate the liquidity implications for the Funds. A Fund's aggregate outstanding interfund loans will not exceed 15% of its net assets, and the Fund's loans to any one Fund will not exceed 5% of the lending Fund's net assets.
4. Applicants assert that the facility does not raise the concerns underlying section 12(d)(1) of the Act given that the Funds are part of the same group of investment companies and there will be no duplicative costs or fees to the Funds.
5. Applicants also believe that the limited relief from section 18(f)(1) of the Act that is necessary to implement the facility (because the lending Funds are not banks) is appropriate in light of the conditions and safeguards described in the application and because the open-end Funds would remain subject to the requirement of section 18(f)(1) that all borrowings of the open-end Fund, including combined interfund loans and bank borrowings, have at least 300% asset coverage.
6. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act. Rule 17d-1(b) under the Act provides that in passing upon an application filed under the rule, the Commission will consider whether the participation of the registered investment company in a joint enterprise, joint arrangement or profit sharing plan on the basis proposed is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of the other participants.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to list and trade under BZX Rule 14.11(c)(4) the shares of the iShares Long-Term National Muni Bond ETF (the “Fund”) of iShares Trust (the “Trust”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares (“Shares”) of the Fund under BZX Rule 14.11(c)(4),
Rule 14.11(c)(4)(B)(i)(b) requires that component fixed income securities that, in the aggregate, account for at least 75% of the weight of the index or portfolio shall have a minimum principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more. The Exchange submits this proposal because the Underlying
BlackRock Fund Advisors is the investment adviser (“BFA” or “Adviser”) to the Fund.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will seek to track the investment results of the S&P 15+ Year National AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index (the “Underlying Index”), which measures the performance of the investment-grade segment of the U.S. municipal bond market with remaining maturities greater than or equal to fifteen years. The Underlying Index primarily includes municipal bonds from issuers that are state or local governments or agencies such that the interest on each such bond is exempt from U.S. federal income taxes and the federal alternative minimum tax (“AMT”). As of February 13, 2018, the Underlying Index included 3,637 component fixed income municipal bond securities from issuers in 45 different states or U.S. territories.
Under normal market conditions,
Each bond in the Underlying Index must be denominated in U.S. dollars, must be a constituent of an offering where the original offering amount was at least $100 million, and must have a minimum par amount of $25 million. To remain in the Underlying Index, bonds must maintain a minimum par amount greater than or equal to $25 million as of the next rebalancing date. The Underlying Index primarily includes municipal bonds from issuers that are state or local governments or agencies such that the interest on each such bond is exempt from U.S. federal income taxes and the federal alternative minimum tax (“AMT”). Each bond in the Underlying Index must have a rating of at least BBB− by S&P Global Ratings, Baa3 by Moody's Investors Service, Inc., or BBB− by Fitch Ratings, Inc. A bond must be rated by at least one of these three rating agencies in order to qualify for the Underlying Index, and the lowest rating will be used in determining if the bond is investment-grade.
Based on the characteristics of the Underlying Index and the representations made in the Requirements for Index Constituents section above, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to allow the listing and trading of the Shares. The Underlying Index and Fund satisfy all of the generic listing requirements for Index Fund Shares based on a fixed income index, except for the minimum principal amount outstanding requirement of 14.11(c)(4)(B)(i)(b). A fundamental purpose behind the minimum principal amount outstanding requirement is to ensure that component securities of an index are sufficiently liquid such that the potential for index manipulation is reduced. With this in mind, the Exchange notes that the representations in the Requirements for Index Constituents for the Underlying Index are identical to the representations made regarding the S&P National AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index (the “Comparable Index”), which underlies a series of Index Fund Shares that were previously approved for listing and trading by the Commission.
In addition, the Exchange represents that: (1) Except for Rule 14.11(c)(4)(B)(i)(b), the Underyling [sic] index currently satisfies all of the generic listing standards under Rule 14.11(c)(4); (2) the continued listing standards under Rule 14.11(c), as applicable to Index Fund Shares based on fixed income securities, will apply to the shares of the Fund; and (3) the issuer of the Fund is required to comply with Rule 10A-3
The current value of the Underlying Index will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least once per day, as required by Rule 14.11(c)(4)(C)(ii). The portfolio of securities held by the Fund will be disclosed daily on the Fund's website. Further, the Fund's website will contain the Fund's prospectus and additional data relating to net asset value (“NAV”) and other applicable quantitative information. The issuer has represented that the NAV will be calculated daily and will be made available to all market participants at the same time. The Index Provider is not a broker-dealer and is not affiliated with a broker-dealer. To the extent that the Index Provider becomes a broker-dealer or becomes affiliated with a broker-dealer, the Index Provider will implement and will maintain a “fire wall” around the personnel who have access to information concerning changes and adjustments to the Underlying Index and the Underlying Index shall be calculated by a third party who is not a broker-dealer or fund advisor. In addition, any advisory committee, supervisory board or similar entity that advises the Index Provider or that makes decisions on the Index, methodology and related matters, will implement and maintain, or be subject to, procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the Underlying Index.
The Exchange's existing rules require that the issuer of the Fund notify the Exchange of any material change to the methodology used to determine the composition of the Underlying Index and, therefore, if the methodology of the Underlying Index was changed in a manner that would materially alter its existing composition, the Exchange would have advance notice and would evaluate the modifications to determine whether the Underyling [sic] Index remained sufficiently broad-based and well diversified.
Price information regarding municipal bonds, convertible securities, and non-exchange traded assets, including investment companies, derivatives, money market instruments, repurchase agreements, structured notes, participation notes, and when-issued securities is available from third party pricing services and major market data vendors. For exchange-traded assets, including investment companies, futures, warrants, and options, such intraday information is available directly from the applicable listing exchange.
The Exchange represents that trading in the shares of the Fund will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, or by regulatory staff of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws. The Exchange represents that these procedures are adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of the shares of the Fund in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and federal securities laws applicable to trading on the Exchange.
The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns, which could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations.
The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and ETFs with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG, and the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares and ETFs from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and ETFs from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, is able to access, as needed, trade information for certain fixed income securities held by a Fund reported to FINRA's Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (“TRACE”). FINRA also can access data obtained from the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”) relating to municipal bond trading activity for surveillance purposes in connection with trading in the Shares.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the shares of the Fund will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria for Index Fund Shares based on a fixed income index in Rule 14.11(c)(4), except for the minimum principal amount outstanding requirement of 14.11(c)(4)(B)(i)(b). The Exchange represents that trading in the shares of the Fund will be subject to the existing trading surveillances administered by the Exchange as well as cross-market surveillances administered by the FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and federal securities laws applicable to trading on the Exchange. The Exchange represents that these procedures are adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of the shares of the Fund in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and federal securities laws applicable to trading on the Exchange. The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the shares of the Fund with other markets that are members of the ISG. In addition, the Exchange will communicate as needed regarding trading in the shares of the Fund with other markets that are members of the ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. FINRA also can access data obtained from the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board relating to municipal bond trading activity for surveillance purposes in connection with trading in the shares of the Fund. FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, is able to access, as needed, trade information for certain fixed income securities held by the Fund reported to
As discussed above, the Exchange believes that the Underlying Index is sufficiently broad-based to deter potential manipulation. The Underlying Index currently includes 3,637 component securities. Whereas the Rule 14.11(c)(4)(B)(i)(e) requires that an index contain securities from a minimum of 13 non-affiliated issuers, the Underlying Index includes securities issued by municipal entities in more than 45 states or U.S. territories. Further, whereas the generic listing rules permit a single component security to represent up to 30% of the weight of an index and the top five component securities to, in aggregate, represent up to 65% of the weight of an index, the largest component security in the Underyling [sic] Index only constitutes 0.32% of the weight of the Underlying Index and the largest five component securities represent 1.36% of the weight of the Underlying Index.
The Exchange believes that this significant diversification and the lack of concentration among constituent securities provides [sic] a strong degree of protection against index manipulation. The Underlying Index and Fund satisfy all of the generic listing requirements for Index Fund Shares based on a fixed income index, except for the minimum principal amount outstanding requirement of 14.11(c)(4)(B)(i)(b). A fundamental purpose behind the minimum principal amount outstanding requirement is to ensure that component securities of an index are sufficiently liquid such that the potential for index manipulation is reduced. With this in mind, the Exchange notes that the representations in the Requirements for Index Constituents for the Underlying Index are identical to the representations made regarding the Comparable Index, which underlies a series of Index Fund Shares that were previously approved for listing and trading by the Commission.
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that a large amount of information is publicly available regarding the Funds, thereby promoting market transparency. The Fund's portfolio holdings will be disclosed on the Fund's website daily after the close of trading on the Exchange and prior to the opening of trading on the Exchange the following day. Moreover, the IIV for shares of the Fund will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Regular Trading Hours. The current value of the Index will be disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least once per day. Information regarding market price and trading volume of the shares of the Fund will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services, and quotation and last sale information will be available via the CTA high-speed line. The website for the Fund will include the prospectus for the Fund and additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information.
If the Exchange becomes aware that the Fund's NAV is not being disseminated to all market participants at the same time, it will halt trading in the shares of the Fund until such time as the NAV is available to all market participants. With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the shares of the Fund. Trading also may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the shares the Fund inadvisable. If the IIV and index value are not being disseminated for the Fund as required, the Exchange may halt trading during the day in which the interruption to the dissemination of the IIV or index value occurs. If the interruption to the dissemination of an IIV or index value persists past the trading day in which it occurred, the Exchange will halt trading. The Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of the Fund. The Exchange will halt trading in the Shares under the conditions specified in BZX Rule 11.18. Trading may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These may include: (1) The extent to which trading is not occurring in the securities and/or the financial instruments composing the daily disclosed portfolio of the Funds; or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. Trading in the Shares also will be subject to Rule 14.11(c)(1)(B)(iv), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of a Fund may be halted. In addition, investors will have ready access to information regarding the applicable IIV, and quotation and last sale information for the shares of the Fund. Trade price and other information relating to municipal bonds is available through the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board's Electronic Municipal Market Access (“EMMA”) system.
All statements and representations made in this filing regarding the index composition, the description of the portfolio or reference assets, limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, dissemination and availability of index, reference asset, and intraday indicative values (as applicable), or the applicability of Exchange listing rules shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the Exchange. The issuer is required to advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will monitor for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Fund is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under Rule 14.12.
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of exchange-traded products that principally hold municipal bonds and that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. The Exchange has in place surveillance procedures relating to trading in the shares of the Fund and may obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition,
For the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act” or “Exchange Act”)
The MSRB filed with the Commission proposed amendments to MSRB Rule A-3, on membership on the Board, MSRB Rule A-4, on meetings of the Board, MSRB Rule A-5, on officers and employees of the Board, and MSRB Rule A-17, on confidentiality of examination reports, to revise the language of the rules to continue to help ensure that they reflect MSRB practices and improve consistency among the rules (collectively, the “proposed rule change”). The MSRB has designated the proposed rule change as being immediately effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the MSRB 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 MSRB has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The MSRB has adopted administrative rules (“A-Rules”) that pertain to the operation and administration of the Board, which are identified by the prefix A.
As part of its review of the A-Rules, the MSRB sought to improve internal consistency among its rules. The MSRB has adopted certain definitional rules which define terms used in the rules of the Board.
Rule A-3(b)(iii) sets forth information regarding the Board application process, including the public notices which the Nominating and Governance Committee (“Committee”) publishes and the information that applicants must provide to the Committee. In describing the information that the Committee's public notice will require, Rule A-3(b)(iii) references “applicant recommendations.” In practice, the Committee solicits applications through an application form completed by applicants.
While applicants can recommend themselves and this phrasing is therefore not inaccurate, the proposed rule change would amend Rule A-3(b)(iii) and (iv) to better reflect the manner in which the Board conducts the application process by replacing references to “recommendations” with “applications” and making other conforming changes.
During the review, the MSRB noted an obsolete cross-reference in Rule A-3(d), which stems from previous amendments to Rule A-3. Specifically, on January 25, 2011, the Commission approved amendments to former Rule A-3(c) (now Rule A-3(b))
At the time of this change, a cross-reference in another part of Rule A-3 to the Commission's approval function was inadvertently not deleted. This cross-reference is currently contained in Rule A-3(d), on vacancies, and it provides that vacancies on the Board with respect to public representatives are filled by Board vote, “subject to the Commission's power of approval referred to in section (c) of [Rule A-3] . . . .” As noted, however, after the 2011 amendments, there is no longer any Commission approval function for public representatives, as was previously described in Rule A-3(c). The cross-reference, therefore, has been without any effect. The proposed rule change would delete the obsolete cross-reference in Rule A-3(d).
The Dodd-Frank Act grants the MSRB broad rulemaking authority over municipal advisors and municipal advisory activities
On July 29, 2009, an amendment to Rule A-3 became effective to add section (g) (now Rule A-3(f)), on affiliations, which prohibits two persons associated with the same dealer from serving as members of the Board at the same time.
Similarly, Rule A-3(c), which provides that an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the whole Board is needed to remove a member from office, requires that the vote to remove include the affirmative vote of at least one public representative, one broker-dealer representative and one bank representative. The rationale of this provision is to require the affirmative vote of at least one member of each Board category in the decision to remove a member. According to the same rationale, this provision should be extended also to require the affirmative vote of at least one municipal advisor representative to remove a Board member from office; thus, the proposed rule change would so amend Rule A-3(c).
Lastly, the proposed rule change would amend certain provisions in Rules A-4, A-5 and A-17 to refer to the MSRB's most senior executive as “Chief Executive Officer” instead of the current title of “Executive Director” due to an
The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 15B(b)(2)(B) and (I) of the Act.
Section 15B(2)(I) provides that the MSRB's rules shall provide for the operation and administration of the MSRB. The proposed rule change amends provisions of the A-Rules that relate to the operation and administration of the MSRB. The MSRB also believes that the proposed rule change will further enhance the Board's governance procedures by improving descriptions of the MSRB's practices and improving internal consistency.
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act
Written comments were neither solicited nor received on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule applicable to its equities trading platform (“BZX Equities”) to: (i) Eliminate fee code HA and replace it with new fee codes HV, HB and HY, (ii) add a Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier; and (iii) modify the rate associated with fee code D, effective May 1, 2018.
Currently, fee code HA is appended to all non-displayed orders that add liquidity and receive a rebate of $0.00150 per share. The Exchange proposes to eliminate fee code HA and replace it with fee codes HV, HB and HY. Particularly, the Exchange proposes to separate out fee code HA into three separate fee codes, each representing a different Tape for non-displayed orders that add liquidity. The Exchange proposes to adopt fee code HV for Tape A non-displayed orders that add liquidity; fee code HB for Tape B non-displayed orders that add liquidity; and fee code HY for Tape C non-displayed orders that add liquidity. The Exchange notes it currently maintains separate fee codes based on Tapes for other types of orders as well.
The Exchange currently provides a standard rebate of $0.00150 per share for non-displayed orders that add liquidity. The Exchange proposes to adopt a new Non-Displayed Add Volume Tape A Volume Tier, Tier 1 under Footnote 1 (“HV Volume Tier”) which would be available for qualifying orders which yield fee code HV. Particularly, under the proposed HV Volume Tier, a Member may receive an enhanced rebate of $0.00260 per share where they add an ADV
The Exchange lastly proposes to increase the fee for orders yielding fee code D, which results from an order routed to the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) using Destination Specific, RDOT, RDOX, TRIM or SLIM routing strategy. Particularly, NYSE recently implemented certain pricing changes related to Tapes B and C securities, including adopting a per tape fee of $0.00280 per share to remove liquidity from the Exchange for member organizations with an Adding ADV of at least 50,000 shares for that respective Tape.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes the proposal to eliminate fee code HA and replace it with fees codes HV, HB and HY is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the standard rebate for current fee code HA and proposed fee codes HV, HB and HY, is not changing and because it applies uniformly to all Members. Additionally, as noted above, the Exchange already maintains separate fee codes based on Tapes for other types of orders.
The Exchange believes the adoption of the HV Volume Tier under footnote 1 is reasonable because it provides Members an opportunity to receive an enhanced rebate for Non-Displayed orders that add liquidity and is a reasonable means to encourage Members to increase their liquidity on the Exchange. The Exchange further believes that the proposed tier represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges because the thresholds necessary to achieve the tier encourages Members to add additional liquidity to the Exchange. The Exchange also notes that the Exchange already utilities similar volume tiers with similar criteria
The Exchange believes the proposed fee is reasonable because it reflects a pass-through of the pricing increase by NYSE noted above. The Exchange further believes the proposed fee change is non-discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that any of the proposed change to the Exchange's tiered pricing structure burden competition, but instead, that they enhance competition as they are intended to increase the competitiveness of BZX by modifying pricing incentives in order to attract order flow and incentivize participants to increase their participation on the Exchange and to reflect a pass through of a pricing increase by NYSE. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee structures to be unreasonable or excessive. The proposed changes are generally intended to enhance the rebates for liquidity added to the Exchange, which is intended to draw additional liquidity to the Exchange. The Exchange does not believe the proposed amendments would burden intramarket competition as they would be available to all Members uniformly.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule applicable to its equities trading platform (“BYX Equities”) to increase the fee for orders yielding fee code D, which results from an order routed to the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) using Destination Specific, RDOT, RDOX, TRIM or SLIM routing strategy. Particularly, NYSE recently implemented certain pricing changes related to Tapes B and C securities, including adopting a per tape fee of $0.00280 per share to remove liquidity from the Exchange for member organizations with an Adding ADV of at least 50,000 shares for that respective Tape.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed fee is reasonable because it reflects a pass-through of the pricing increase by NYSE noted above. The Exchange further believes the proposed fee change is non-discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change to the Exchange's routing pricing burdens competition, as it's based on the pricing of another venue and applies uniformly to all Members. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee structures to be unreasonable or excessive. The Exchange does not believe the proposed amendments would burden intramarket competition as they would be available to all Members uniformly.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal 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.
Notice is hereby given that the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has issued an Order, pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Section 19(g)(1) of the Act,
Section 17(d)(1) of the Act
To implement Section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules: Rule 17d-1 and Rule 17d-2 under the Act.
To address regulatory duplication in these and other areas, the Commission adopted Rule 17d-2 under the Act.
On May 14, 2007, the Commission declared effective the Plan entered into between NASD (n/k/a FINRA) and Cboe for allocating regulatory responsibility pursuant to Rule 17d-2.
On May 4, 2018, the parties submitted a proposed amendment to the Plan (“Amended Plan”). The primary purposes of the Amended Plan are to (1) remove Cboe's former equities trading facility, CBSX, from the Plan; (2) to the extent that it becomes a member of either exchange, allocate regulatory responsibility to FINRA for Cboe's and C2's affiliated routing broker-dealer, Cboe Trading, Inc.; and (3) allocate surveillance, investigation, and enforcement responsibilities for Rule 14e-4 under the Act . The text of the proposed Amended Plan is as follows (additions are
This Agreement, by and among Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), [the Chicago
This Agreement amends and restates the agreement entered into between [NASD (n/k/a] FINRA[) and]
WHEREAS, the parties desire to reduce duplication in the examination of their Common Members (as defined herein) and in the filing and processing of certain registration and membership records as it relates to [the CBOE]
WHEREAS, the parties desire to execute an agreement covering such subjects pursuant to the provisions of Rule 17d-2 under the Exchange Act and to file such agreement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” or “Commission”) for its approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained hereinafter, the parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Definitions. Unless otherwise defined in this Agreement or the context otherwise requires, the terms used in this Agreement shall have the same meaning as they have under the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. As used in this Agreement, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
(a) “
(b) “
(c) “
(d) “
(e) “
(f) “
2. Regulatory and Enforcement Responsibilities. FINRA shall assume Regulatory Responsibilities and Enforcement Responsibilities for Common Members. Attached as
(a) Surveillance and enforcement with respect to trading activities or practices involving [CBOE]
(b) registration pursuant to their applicable Rules of associated persons (
(c) discharge of their duties and obligations as a Designated Examining Authority pursuant to Rule 17d-1 under the Exchange Act; and
(d) any [CBOE]
3. Common Members. Prior to the Effective Date, [CBOE]
4. No Charge. There shall be no charge to [CBOE]
5. Reassignment of Regulatory Responsibilities. Notwithstanding any provision hereof, this Agreement shall be subject to any statute, or any rule or order of the Commission, or industry agreement, restructuring the regulatory framework of the securities industry or reassigning Regulatory Responsibilities between self-regulatory organizations. To the extent such action is inconsistent with this Agreement, such action shall supersede the provisions hereof to the extent necessary for them to be properly effectuated and the provisions hereof in that respect shall be null and void.
6. Notification of Violations. In the event that FINRA becomes aware of apparent violations of any [CBOE]
7. Continued Assistance. FINRA shall make available to [CBOE]
8. Common Member Applications.
(a) Common Members subject to this Agreement shall be required to submit, and FINRA shall be responsible for processing and acting upon all applications submitted on behalf of allied persons, partners, officers, registered personnel and any other person required to be approved by the Rules of the parties or associated with Common Members thereof. Upon request, FINRA shall advise [CBOE]
(b) Common Members shall be required to send to FINRA all letters, termination notices or other material respecting the individuals listed in paragraph 8(a).
(c) When as a result of processing such submissions FINRA becomes aware of a statutory disqualification as defined in the Exchange Act with respect to a Common Member, FINRA shall determine pursuant to Sections 15A(g) and/or Section 6(c) of the Exchange Act the acceptability or continued applicability of the person to whom such disqualification applies and keep [CBOE]
(d) Notwithstanding the foregoing, FINRA shall not review the membership application, reports, filings, fingerprint cards, notices, or other writings filed to determine if such documentation submitted by a broker or dealer, or a person associated therewith or other persons required to register or qualify by examination meets [the CBOE]
9. Branch Office Information. FINRA shall also be responsible for processing and, if required, acting upon all requests for the opening, address changes, and terminations of branch offices by Common Members and any other applications required of Common Members with respect to the Common Rules as they may be amended from time to time. Upon request, FINRA shall advise [CBOE]
10. Customer Complaints. [CBOE]
11. Advertising. FINRA shall assume responsibility to review the advertising of Common Members subject to the Agreement, provided that such material is filed with FINRA in accordance with FINRA's filing procedures and is
12. No Restrictions on Regulatory Action. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall restrict or in any way encumber the right of any party to conduct its own independent or concurrent investigation, examination or enforcement proceeding of or against Common Members, as any party, in its sole discretion, shall deem appropriate or necessary.
13. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by any party at any time upon the approval of the Commission after one (1) year's written notice (or such shorter time as may be agreed by the parties) to the other parties, except as provided in paragraph 4.
14. Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective upon approval of the Commission.
15. Arbitration. In the event of a dispute among the parties as to the operation of this Agreement, the parties hereby agree that any such dispute shall be settled by arbitration in Washington, DC in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association then in effect, or such other procedures as the parties may mutually agree upon. Judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction.
16. Separate Agreement. This Agreement is wholly separate from the following agreements: (1) The multiparty Agreement made pursuant to Rule 17d-2 of the Exchange Act among [BATS]
17. Notification of Members. The parties shall notify Common Members of this Agreement after the Effective Date by means of a uniform joint notice.
18. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended in writing duly approved by each party. All such amendments must be filed with and approved by the Commission before they become effective.
19. Limitation of Liability. None of the parties nor any of their respective directors, governors, officers or employees shall be liable to any other party to this Agreement for any liability, loss or damage resulting from or claimed to have resulted from any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions with respect to the provision of Regulatory Responsibilities as provided hereby or for the failure to provide any such responsibility, except with respect to such liability, loss or damages as shall have been suffered by any party and caused by the willful misconduct of another party or their respective directors, governors, officers or employees. No warranties, express or implied, are made by any party hereto with respect to any of the responsibilities to be performed by them hereunder.
20. Relief from Responsibility. Pursuant to Sections 17(d)(1)(A) and 19(g) of the Exchange Act and Rule 17d-2 thereunder, FINRA, C2 and [CBOE]
21. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
Exhibit 1 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
Cboe and C2 hereby certify that the requirements contained in the Rules listed below are identical to, or substantially similar to, the NASD/FINRA or SEC Rules identified.
# Common Rules shall not include any provisions regarding (i) notice, reporting or any other filings made directly to or from C2 or Cboe; (ii) incorporation by reference of other C2 or Cboe Rules that are not Common Rules; (iii) exercise of discretion in a manner that differs from FINRA's exercise of discretion including, but not limited to exercise of exemptive authority by C2 or Cboe; (iv) prior written approval of C2 or Cboe; and (v) payment of fees or fines to C2 or Cboe.
The following provisions are covered:
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing. 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.
The Commission finds that the proposed Amended Plan is consistent with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act
The Commission notes that, under the Amended Plan, Cboe, C2, and FINRA have allocated regulatory responsibility for those Cboe and C2 rules, set forth in the Certification, that are substantially similar to the applicable FINRA rules in that examination for compliance with such provisions and rules would not require FINRA to develop one or more new examination standards, modules, procedures, or criteria in order to analyze the application of the rule, or a Common Member's activity, conduct, or output in relation to such rule. In addition, under the Amended Plan, FINRA would assume regulatory responsibility for certain provisions of the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder that are set forth in the Certification. The Common Rules covered by the Amended Plan are specifically listed in the Certification, as may be amended by the Parties from time to time.
According to the Amended Plan, Cboe and C2 will review the Certification, at least annually, or more frequently if required by changes in either the rules of Cboe, C2, or FINRA, and, if necessary, submit to FINRA an updated list of Common Rules to add Cboe and C2 rules not included on the then-current list of Common Rules that are substantially similar to FINRA rules; delete Cboe and C2 rules included in the then-current list of Common Rules that no longer qualify as common rules; and confirm that the remaining rules on the list of Common Rules continue to be Cboe and C2 rules that qualify as common rules.
The Commission is hereby declaring effective an Amended Plan that, among other things, allocates regulatory responsibility to FINRA for the oversight and enforcement of all Cboe and C2 rules that are substantially similar to the rules of FINRA for Common Members of Cboe and FINRA, and C2 and FINRA. Therefore, modifications to the Certification need not be filed with the Commission as an amendment to the Amended Plan, provided that the Parties are only adding to, deleting from, or confirming changes to Cboe or C2 rules in the Certification in conformance with the definition of Common Rules provided in the Amended Plan. However, should the Parties decide to add a Cboe or C2 rule to the Certification that is not substantially similar to a FINRA rule; delete a Cboe or C2 rule from the Certification that is substantially similar to a FINRA rule; or leave on the Certification a Cboe or C2 rule that is no longer substantially similar to a FINRA rule, then such a change would constitute an amendment to the Amended Plan, which must be filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act.
Under paragraph (c) of Rule 17d-2, the Commission may, after appropriate notice and comment, declare a plan, or any part of a plan, effective. In this instance, the Commission believes that appropriate notice and comment can take place after the proposed amendment is effective. The primary purposes of the amendment are to remove Cboe's former equities trading facility, CBSX, from the Plan; (2) to the extent that it becomes a member of either exchange, allocate regulatory responsibility to FINRA for Cboe's and C2's affiliated routing broker-dealer, Cboe Trading, Inc.; and (3) allocate surveillance, investigation, and enforcement responsibilities for Rule 14e-4 under the Act . By declaring it effective today, the Amended Plan can become effective and be implemented without undue delay. The Commission notes that the prior version of this plan immediately prior to this proposed amendment was published for comment and the Commission did not receive any comments thereon.
This order gives effect to the Amended Plan filed with the Commission in File No. 4-536. The Parties shall notify all members affected by the Amended Plan of their rights and obligations under the Amended Plan.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4361-DR), dated 04/26/2018.
Issued on 04/26/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 04/26/2018, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 155206 and for economic injury is 155210.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Hawaii (FEMA-4365-DR), dated 05/08/2018.
Issued on 05/08/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 05/08/2018, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 155186 and for economic injury is 155190.
The Department of State announces a meeting of the U.S. State Department
For more information, contact Marsha Thurman, Overseas Security Advisory Council, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20522-2008, phone 571-345-2214.
Annual certification of shrimp-harvesting nations.
On May 8, 2018, the Department of State certified that 13 shrimp-harvesting nations and five fisheries have a regulatory program comparable to that of the United States governing the incidental taking of the relevant species of sea turtles in the course of commercial shrimp harvesting and that the particular fishing environments of 26 shrimp-harvesting nations, one economy, and four fisheries do not pose a threat of the incidental taking of covered sea turtles in the course of such harvesting.
This notice is applicable on May 16, 2018.
Section 609 Program Manager, Office of Marine Conservation, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Department of State, 2201 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20520-2758; telephone: (202) 647-3263; email:
Section 609 of Public Law 101-162 (“Sec. 609”) prohibits imports of certain categories of shrimp unless the President certifies to the Congress by May 1, 1991, and annually thereafter, that either: (1) The harvesting nation has adopted a program governing the incidental taking of sea turtles in its commercial shrimp fishery comparable to the program in effect in the United States and has an incidental take rate comparable to that of the United States; or (2) the particular fishing environment of the harvesting nation does not pose a threat of the incidental taking of sea turtles. The President has delegated the authority to make this certification to the Department of State (“the Department”). The Department's Revised Guidelines for the Implementation of Section 609 were published in the
On May 8, 2018, the Department certified 13 nations on the basis that their sea turtle protection programs are comparable to that of the United States: Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Gabon, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama, and Suriname. The Department also certified 26 shrimp-harvesting nations and one economy as having fishing environments that do not pose a danger to sea turtles. Sixteen nations have shrimping grounds only in cold waters where the risk of taking sea turtles is negligible: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay. Ten nations and Hong Kong only harvest shrimp using small boats with crews of less than five that use manual rather than mechanical means to retrieve nets or catch shrimp using other methods that do not threaten sea turtles. Use of such small-scale technology does not adversely affect sea turtles. The 10 nations are the Bahamas, Belize, China, the Dominican Republic, Fiji, Jamaica, Oman, Peru, Sri Lanka, and Venezuela.
A completed DS-2031 Shrimp Exporter's/Importer's Declaration must accompany all shipments of shrimp or products from shrimp into the United States. Only shrimp or products from shrimp harvested in the 39 certified nations and one economy listed above may be accompanied by a DS-2031 with Box 7(B) checked. All DS-2031 forms accompanying shrimp imports from uncertified nations must be originals with Box 7(A)(1), 7(A)(2), or 7(A)(4) checked, consistent with the form's instructions with regard to the method of harvest of the product and based on any relevant prior determinations by the Department, and signed by a responsible government official of the harvesting nation's competent domestic fisheries authority. The Department has not determined that any uncertified nation qualifies to export shrimp or products from shrimp harvested in a manner as described in 7(A)(3).
Shrimp and products of shrimp harvested with turtle excluder devices (“TEDs”) in an uncertified nation may, under specific circumstances, be eligible for importation into the United States under the DS-2031 Box 7(A)(2) provision for “shrimp harvested by commercial shrimp trawl vessels using TEDs comparable in effectiveness to those required in the United States.” Use of this provision requires that the Department determine in advance that the government of the harvesting nation has put in place adequate procedures to monitor the use of TEDs in the specific fishery in question and to ensure the accurate completion of the DS-2031 forms. At this time, the Department has determined that only shrimp and products from shrimp harvested in the Northern Prawn Fishery, the Queensland East Coast Trawl Fishery, and the Torres Strait Prawn Fishery in Australia, in the French Guiana domestic trawl fishery, and in the East Coast fishery of peninsular Malaysia are eligible for entry under this provision. The importation of TED-caught shrimp from any other uncertified nation will not be allowed. A responsible government official of Australia, France, or Malaysia must sign in Block 8 of the DS-2031 form accompanying these imports into the United States.
In addition, the Department has determined that shrimp and products from shrimp harvested in the Spencer Gulf region in Australia, with shrimp baskets in Hokkaido, Japan, with “mosquito” nets in the Republic of Korea, and Mediterranean red shrimp (
The Department has communicated these certifications and determinations under Sec. 609 to the Office of
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice announces the second meeting of the Motorcyclist Advisory Council (MAC) to the FHWA. The purpose of this meeting is to advise the Secretary of Transportation, through the Administrator of the FHWA, on infrastructure issues of concern to motorcyclists, including barrier design; road design, construction, and maintenance practices; and the architecture and implementation of intelligent transportation system technologies, pursuant to the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act.
The MAC will convene virtually, via Web conference connection, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. EST on Thursday, June 7, 2018.
The meeting will take place online. There is no physical address for this meeting.
Mr. Michael Griffith, the Designated Federal Official, Office of Safety, 202-366-2829, (
An electronic copy of this notice may be downloaded from the
Section 1426 of Pub. L. 114-94.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its revision and approval and invites public comment. The ICR is related to Form BMC-32 titled, “Endorsement for Household Goods Motor Carrier Policies of Insurance for Cargo Liability Under 49 U.S.C. 13906.”
We must receive your comments on or before July 16, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2018-0120 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Jeff Secrist, Office of Registration & Safety Information, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-385-2367; email
The Agency is seeking approval for use of Form BMC-32 titled, “Endorsement for Household Goods Motor Carrier Policies of Insurance for Cargo Liability Under 49 U.S.C. 13906.” Previously, Form BMC-32 was included as part of the collection covered by OMB Control Number 2126-0017 (“Financial Responsibility, Trucking and Freight Forwarding”). The last Notice of OMB Action providing approval of the BMC-32 form under OMB Control Number 2126-0017 was February 23, 2006, with an expiration date of February 28, 2009. Because 2126-0017 was recently renewed without including Form BMC-32, FMCSA is seeking approval of the form, with the intent of combining this approval with OMB Control Number 2126-0017.
Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that on May 4, 2018, BNSF Railway Company (BNSF), with participating railroads Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and Canadian Pacific Railway (CP), petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for approval of a Product Safety Plan (PSP) pursuant to 49 CFR 236.907(a). FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2006-23686.
BNSF, with participant railroads UP and CP, request FRA approval of a PSP for the Dual Radar Roadway Vehicle Detector (VDR24). The VDR24, supplied by Island Radar, is used as a vehicle detection subsystem for four-quadrant gate crossing warning systems, with its intended application as an alternative to inductive loop vehicle detectors.
The petition asserts that this PSP addresses all requirements of 49 CFR 236.907(a).
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by July 2, 2018 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petition for exemption.
This document grants in full the BMW of North America, LLC's (BMW) petition for exemption of the 8 series vehicle line in accordance with
The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with the 2019 model year (MY).
Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, West Building, Room W43-439, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's telephone number is 202-366-5222. Her fax number is 202-493-2990.
In a petition dated January 12, 2018, BMW requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard for the 8 series vehicle line beginning with MY 2019. The petition requested an exemption from parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR part 543,
Under 49 CFR part 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant an exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition, BMW provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft device for its 8 series vehicle line. BMW stated that its 8 series vehicle line will be installed with a passive, electronically-coded, vehicle immobilizer system (EWS) as standard equipment that will prevent the vehicle from being driven away under its own engine power. Key features of the antitheft device will include a remote-control w/mechanical key, ring antenna (transponder coil), low frequency antenna (LF), engine control unit (DME/DDE) with encoded start release input, a passive immobilizer, and an EWS (BDC) control unit. BMW also stated that it will not offer an audible or visible alarm feature on the proposed device.
BMW's submission is considered a complete petition as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements contained in § 543.5 and the specific content requirements of § 543.6.
In addressing the specific content requirements of Part 543.6, BMW provided information on the reliability and durability of its device. To ensure reliability and durability of its device, BMW stated that it conducted tests on the antitheft device which complied with its own specific standards. BMW further stated that its antitheft device fulfills the requirements of the January 1995 European vehicle insurance companies. In further addressing the reliability and durability of its device, BMW provided information on the uniqueness of its mechanical keys to be used on the 8 series vehicle line. Specifically, BMW stated that the vehicle's mechanical keys are unique because they require a special key blank, cutting machine and a unique vehicle code to allow for key duplication. BMW also stated that the mechanical keys cannot be used to deactivate the device but that activation must be done electronically. BMW further stated that the new keys will only be issued to authorized persons and will incorporate special guide-way millings, making the locks almost impossible to pick and the keys impossible to duplicate on the open market.
BMW stated that activation of its antitheft device occurs automatically when the engine is shut off and the vehicle key is removed from the ignition system. BMW stated that a transponder (transmitter/receiver) in the radio frequency remote control communicates with the EWS (BDC) control unit providing the interface to the loop antenna (coil), engine control unit and starter. After an initial starting value, the authentication uses the challenge response technique with symmetric secret key. BMW further stated that when the control unit identifies the correct release signal, the ignition signal and fuel supply are released allowing operation of the vehicle.
BMW also stated that the vehicle is equipped with a central-locking system that can be operated to lock and unlock all doors or to unlock only the driver's door, preventing forced entry into the vehicle through the passenger doors. BMW further stated that the vehicle can be further secured by locking the doors and hood using either the key-lock cylinder on the driver's door or the remote frequency remote control. BMW stated that the frequency for the remote control constantly changes to prevent an unauthorized person from opening the vehicle by intercepting the signals of its remote control.
BMW further stated that all of its vehicles are currently equipped with antitheft devices as standard equipment, including its 8 series vehicle line. BMW compared the effectiveness of its antitheft device with devices which NHTSA has previously determined to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541. Specifically, BMW has installed its antitheft device
Based on the supporting evidence submitted by BMW, the Agency believes that the antitheft device for the BMW 8 series vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). The Agency concludes that the device will provide four of the five types of performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7 (b), the Agency grants a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of Part 541, either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon supporting evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541. The Agency finds that BMW has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the antitheft device for the 8 series vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). This conclusion is based on the information BMW provided about its device.
For the foregoing reasons, the Agency hereby grants in full BMW's petition for exemption for the MY 2019 8 series vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The Agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft Prevention Standard for a given MY. 49 CFR part 543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the disposition of all Part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the petition is granted and a general description of the antitheft device is necessary in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
If BMW decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must formally notify the Agency. If such a decision is made, the line must be fully marked as required by 49 CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
NHTSA notes that if BMW wishes in the future to modify the device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a petition to modify the exemption.
Part 543.7(d) states that a Part 543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted under this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the line's exemption is based. Further, § 543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission of petitions “to modify an exemption to permit the use of an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in that exemption.”
The Agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Part 543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself. The Agency did not intend Part 543 to require the submission of a modification petition for every change to the components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many such changes could be
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR Part 1.95 and 501.8.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Denial of petition for a defect investigation.
This document denies a January 11, 2017, petition, as submitted under Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) ID number 10944318, from Ms. Laura Nagel of Springfield, VA, requesting that the agency open an investigation into an alleged defect resulting in engine stall without warning after refueling in a model year (MY) 2007 Jeep Patriot. The petitioner's vehicle is a 2007 Jeep Patriot. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) evaluated the petition by analyzing consumer complaints submitted to the Agency, by reviewing two prior evaluations of the same apparent defect issue, and by reviewing technical and field information provided by FCA US, LLC (FCA) in response to an information request letter from the Agency. After completing this evaluation, NHTSA has concluded that further investigation of the alleged defect in the subject vehicles is unlikely to result in a determination that a safety related defect exists. The agency accordingly denies the petition.
Dr. Abhijit Sengupta, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-4293.
The petitioner alleges that her MY 2007 Jeep Patriot vehicle experienced multiple incidents of engine stall without warning shortly after refueling. The petitioner discovered that the defective part is a valve that is integral to the fuel tank, requiring tank replacement to repair the problem. The petitioner alleged that stalling without warning is an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety and requests the agency take action by opening a Preliminary Evaluation to fully evaluate the defect.
The Safety Act, (Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C. 30101 et. seq.)) defines motor vehicle
On February 10, 2014, ODI closed an investigation of an alleged defect in approximately 153,817 MY 2006 Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger and Dodge Magnum vehicles (LX cars) that may result in engine stall shortly after refueling (PE13-016). In response to ODI's information request for PE13-016, FCA identified a problem with the multifunction control valve (MFCV) fuel shutoff float integrated into 19-gallon fuel tanks in certain LX vehicles. According to FCA, the float may swell after exposure to fuels with high ethanol content, which may cause the valve to stick. A float valve that is stuck open during refueling could result in fuel tank overfill and allow raw fuel to enter the purge line and vapor canister. This could result in problems with engine drivability (
ODI's complaint review showed most of the engine stall incidents occurred when vehicles were stopped or travelling at low speeds. This review also revealed that no significant difficulty restarting the vehicle was reported and no crashes or injuries were identified in the subject vehicles, which had been in service for 7 to 8 years. The investigation (PE13-016) was closed without a finding of a defect due to the low safety risk associated with the alleged defect condition. Further details of the investigation are available at
In response to ODI's information request letter for DP14-002, FCA indicated that the RS Minivan may experience MFCV float sticking similar to that investigated in PE13-016 and described above. Further details of the investigation are available at
As part of its evaluation of DP14-002, NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) tested a 2005 Chrysler Town & Country LMT (3.6L SFI, 20 gal. fuel tank) that was the subject of an ODI complaint (VOQ 10641603) and proved the vehicle was affected by the sticking in-tank fuel valve. VRTC's examination assessed engine performance after refueling, including the driving conditions and ease of engine restart associated with any observed engine stalls. When refueling the vehicle up to the initial shut-off of the filling station pump nozzle, the VRTC testing was able to reproduce stalling incidents when the vehicle was stopped or coasting to a stop at low speed. The vehicle did not stall 4 out of 5 times when travelling at 5 mph, but minor hesitation was noted. No stalls and only minor hesitation occurred when travelling at 10 mph or above in tanks filled to the initial nozzle shut-off. Stalling was more likely to occur if the tank was overfilled (
In response to ODI's information request letter for DP17-002, FCA indicated that the 2007 Jeep Patriot may experience a condition with MFCV float sticking similar to the one investigated in the LX Cars in PE13-016 and 2007 Chrysler Minivans in DP14-002. As described above in PE13-016, the failure mechanism is a result of a swollen refueling float within the multifunction control valve. The FCA response also indicated no reported accidents or property damage in a fleet of 29,573 vehicles with more than 4 billion vehicle miles driven over 10 years of service. FCA believes that, predicated upon these findings, there is no unreasonable risk to motor safety. Further details of the investigation will be available in the near future at
ODI's complaint analysis of the alleged defect, completed in March 2017, identified 39 post-refueling engine stall incidents in approximately 29,573 vehicles. Similar to the LX Car analysis in PE13-016, and 2007 Chrysler Minivans analysis in DP14-002, the engine stalls occurred immediately after refueling when the vehicle was stopped or coasting to a stop at low speed. There were no allegations of significant difficulty restarting the engines immediately after the stalls occurred. None of the complaints alleged any crash or injury. Based upon the above facts and the conditions in which any stall occurs, ODI concludes that further investigation is unlikely to result in a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists.
In the Agency's view, additional investigation is unlikely to result in a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists given the limited conditions under which the subject condition may result in engine stall. Although NHTSA can and will take action before a defect results in a crash, injury or death, the absence of any reported crashes or injuries in a fleet of nearly 30,000 vehicles estimated to have driven 4 billion vehicle miles indicates that further investigation is not warranted under the facts known to the Agency at this time. Therefore, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize NHTSA's limited resources to best accomplish the agency's safety mission, the petition is denied. The Agency will take further action if warranted by future circumstances.
49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Reinstatement of a previously approved collection of information.
This document solicits public comments on continuation of the requirements for the collection of information entitled “Consolidated Child Restraint System Registration, Labeling and Defect Notifications” (OMB Control Number: 2127-0576) and the accuracy of the revised agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection.
Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections.
You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that Docket Management receives them no later than July 16, 2018.
You may submit comments (identified by the DOT Docket ID Number above) by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the docket number of this document. You may call the Docket at 202-366-9324. Please identify the proposed collection of information for which a comment is provided, by referencing its OMB clearance number. It is requested, but not required, that two copies of the comment be provided.
Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
Complete copies of each request for collection of information may be obtained at no charge from Cristina Echemendia, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Room W43-447, NRM-130, Washington, DC 20590. Cristina Echemendia's telephone number is 202-366-6345 and fax number is 202-366-7002. Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB Control Number.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a document in the
(i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public comments on the following proposed collection of information:
In addition to the registration card supplied by the manufacturer, NHTSA has implemented a CRS registration system to assist those individuals who have either lost the registration card that came with the CRS or purchased a previously owned CRS. Upon the owner's request, NHTSA provides a substitute registration form that can be obtained either by mail or from the internet
Child seat owner registration information is retained in the event that owners need to be contacted for defect recalls or replacement campaigns. Chapter 301 of title 49 of the United States Code specifies that if either NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that motor vehicles or items of motor
Child restraint manufacturers are also required to provide a printed instructions brochure with step-by-step information on how the restraint is to be used. Without proper use, the effectiveness of these systems is greatly diminished. Each child restraint system must also have a permanent label. A permanently attached label gives “quicklook” information on whether the restraint meets the safety requirements, recommended installation and use, and warnings against misuse. CRSs equipped with internal harnesses to restrain children, and with components to attach to a child restraint anchorage system, are also required to be labeled with a child weight limit for using the lower anchors to attach the child restraint to the vehicle. The child weight limit depends upon the weight of the CRS.
The total burden hours for this collection consist of: (1) The hours spent by consumers filling out the registration form, (2) the hours spent collecting registration information and (3) the hours spent determining the maximum allowable child weight for lower anchor use and adding the information to the existing label and instruction manual.
NHTSA estimates that 14,500,000 CRSs are currently sold each year by 29 CRS manufacturers. Of the CRSs sold each year, NHTSA estimates that 2,147,504 are registered using registration cards and 421,895 are registered online. A consumer spends approximately 60 seconds (1 minute) filling out the registration form. The estimated annual number of burden hours for consumers to fill out the registration form is 42,823 hours (= 2,569,400 × (60 seconds/3,600 seconds/hour)). Manufacturers must spend about 90 seconds (1.5 min) to enter the information from each returned registration card; while, online registrations are considered to have no burden for the manufacturer, as the information is entered by the purchaser. Therefore, the estimated annual number of burden hours for CRS registration information collection is 53,688 hours (= 2,147,504 × (90 seconds/3,600 seconds/hour)).
About 10,150,000 of the CRSs sold each year are equipped with internal harnesses. About half of the CRSs equipped with internal harnesses sold annually (5,075,000 = 10,150,000 × 0.5) would require a label with the maximum allowable child weight for using the lower anchors. Manufacturers must spend about 2 seconds to determine the maximum allowable child weight for lower anchor use and to add the information to the existing label and instruction manual. Therefore, the total annual burden hours for the information on the maximum allowable child weight in the existing label and instruction manual is 2,819 hours (= 5,075,000 × (2 seconds/3,600 seconds/hour)).
The estimated total annual number of burden hours is 99,330 (= 42,823 + 53,688 + 2,819) hours. The total estimated hour burden increased from 40,497 hours in the 2015 information collection notice to 99,330 burden hours (a 58,833 burden hour increase). The increase in burden is due to the inclusion of the burden hours to consumers for filling the registration form and due to an increase in CRS sales. In 2015, NHTSA estimated that approximately 10,600,000 CRSs are sold each year while NHTSA's estimate in 2018 increased to 14,500,000 CRSs.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petition for exemption.
This document grants in full the Ford Motor Company's (Ford) petition for an exemption of the Lincoln Nautilus vehicle line in accordance with
The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with the 2019 model year (MY).
Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West Building, W43-439, NRM-310, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's phone number is 202-366-5222. Her fax number is 202-493-2990.
In a petition dated February 6, 2018, Ford requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard for the Lincoln Nautilus vehicle line beginning with MY 2019. The petition requested exemption from parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR part 543,
Under 49 CFR part 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant an exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition, Ford provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft device for its Lincoln Nautilus vehicle line. Ford stated that the Lincoln Nautilus will be installed with its Intelligent Access with Push Button Start (IAwPB) system as standard equipment on the entire vehicle line. The IAwPB system is a passive, electronic engine immobilizer device that uses encrypted transponder technology. Key components of the IAwPB device will include an Intelligent Access electronic Push-Button Start key fob, keyless ignition system, radio transceiver module, body control module (BCM), powertrain control module (PCM) and a passive immobilizer. Ford further stated that its Lincoln Nautilus vehicle line will also be offered with a perimeter alarm system as standard equipment which will activate a visible and audible alarm whenever unauthorized access is attempted.
Ford stated that the device's integration of the transponder into the normal operation of the ignition key assures activation of the system. Ford also stated that its system is automatically activated when the “StartStop” button is pressed, shutting off the engine. Ford stated that the device is deactivated when a start sequence is completed and engine start is successful. Ford further stated that the vehicle engine can only be started when the key is present in the vehicle and the “StartStop” button inside the vehicle is pressed. Ford stated that when the “StartStop” button is pressed, the transceiver module will read a key code and transmit an encrypted message to the control module to determine key validity and engine start by sending a separate encrypted message to the BCM and the PCM. The powertrain will function only if the key code matches the unique identification key code previously programmed into the BCM. Ford stated that the two modules must be matched together in order for the vehicle to start. If the codes do not match, the powertrain engine will be inoperable. Ford further stated that any attempt to operate the vehicle without transmission of the correct code to the electronic control (
Ford's submission is considered a complete petition as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements contained in § 543.5 and the specific content requirements of § 543.6.
In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Ford provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, Ford conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Ford provided a detailed list of the tests conducted and believes that the device is reliable and durable since the device complied with its own specified requirements for each test.
Ford stated that incorporation of several features in the device further support the reliability and durability of the device. Specifically, some of those features include: Encrypted communication between the transponder, BCM control function and the PCM; virtually impossible key duplication; and shared security data between the body control module/remote function actuator and the powertrain control module. Additionally, Ford stated that its antitheft device has no moving parts (
Ford stated that its MY 2019 Lincoln Nautilus vehicle line will also be equipped with several other standard antitheft features common to Ford vehicles, (
Ford stated that it believes that the standard installation of its IAwPB device would be an effective deterrent against vehicle theft and compared its proposed device with other antitheft devices which NHTSA has determined to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the parts-marking requirements.
Ford stated that the antitheft device was installed on all MY 1996 Ford Mustang GT and Cobra models as well as other selected models. Ford also stated that on its 1997 models, the installation of its antitheft device was extended to the entire Ford Mustang vehicle line as standard equipment and that according to the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) theft statistics, MY 1997 Mustangs installed with the antitheft device showed a 70% reduction in theft rate compared to its MY 1995 Mustangs without an antitheft device.
Ford further stated that the proposed antitheft device is very similar to the system that was offered on its MY 2016 Lincoln MKX vehicle line. The Lincoln MKX vehicle line was granted a parts-marking exemption on November 25, 2014 by NHTSA (See 79 FR 70276) beginning with its MY 2016 vehicles. The agency notes that current theft rate data for the Lincoln MKX vehicle line for MYs 2012 through 2014 are 0.5841, 0.5724 and 0.5276 respectively.
Ford also reported that beginning with MY 2010, its antitheft device was installed as standard equipment on all of its North American Ford, Lincoln and Mercury vehicles but was offered as optional equipment on its 2010 F-series Super Duty pickups, Econoline and Transit Connect vehicles. Ford further stated that beginning with MY 2010, the IAwPB device was installed as standard equipment on its Lincoln MKT vehicles. In MY 2011, the device was offered as standard equipment on its Lincoln MKX vehicle line, and as an option on the Lincoln MKS, Ford Taurus, Edge, Explorer and Focus vehicles. Beginning with MY 2013, the device was offered as standard equipment on the Lincoln MKZ and optionally on the Ford Fusion, C-Max and Escape vehicles.
Ford referenced the agency's published theft rate data for the Lincoln MKX vehicles and stated that the Lincoln Nautilus will use the IAwPB device similar to the design and architecture of the Lincoln MKX. Ford
The agency agrees that the device is substantially similar to devices installed on other vehicle lines for which the agency has already granted exemptions.
Based on the supporting evidence submitted by Ford on the device, the agency believes that the antitheft device for the Lincoln Nautilus vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541).
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7 (b), the agency grants a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of part 541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541. The agency finds that Ford has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the antitheft device for the Lincoln Nautilus vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). This conclusion is based on the information Ford provided about its device.
The agency concludes that the device will provide the five types of performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; attracting attention to the efforts of unauthorized persons to enter or operate a vehicle by means other than a key; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Ford's petition for exemption for the Lincoln Nautilus vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR part 543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the disposition of all part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the petition is granted and a general description of the antitheft device is necessary in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
If Ford decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
NHTSA notes that if Ford wishes in the future to modify the device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a part 543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted under this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the line's exemption is based. Further, part 543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission of petitions “to modify an exemption to permit the use of an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in that exemption.”
The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that part 543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself. The agency did not intend in drafting part 543 to require the submission of a modification petition for every change to the components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many such changes could be
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95 and 501.8.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting: change.
In the
The meeting will be held Thursday, May 31, 2018.
Lisa Billups at 1-888-912-1227 or (214) 413-6523.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be held Thursday, May 31, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. For more information please contact Lisa Billups at 1-888-912-1227 or (214) 413-6523, or write TAP Office 1114 Commerce Street, Dallas, TX 75242-1021, or post comments to the website:
The agenda will include various committee issues for submission to the IRS and other TAP related topics. Public input is welcomed.
In accordance with section 999(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the Department of the Treasury is publishing a current list of countries which require or may require participation in, or cooperation with, an international boycott (within the meaning of section 999(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).
On the basis of the best information currently available to the Department of the Treasury, the following countries require or may require participation in, or cooperation with, an international boycott (within the meaning of section 999(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).
Departmental Offices, Department of the Treasury.
Notice of reporting requirements.
By this Notice and in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, the Department of the Treasury is informing the public that it is conducting a mandatory survey of foreign ownership of U.S. securities as of June 30, 2018. This mandatory survey is conducted under the authority of the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act. This Notice constitutes legal notification to all United States persons (defined below) who meet the reporting requirements set forth in this Notice that they must respond to, and comply with, this survey. Additional copies of the reporting forms SHLA (2018) and instructions may be printed from the internet at:
Data should be submitted to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, acting as fiscal agent for the Department of the Treasury, by August 31, 2018.
Copies of the survey forms and instructions, which contain complete information on reporting procedures and definitions, may be obtained at the website address given above in the Summary, or by contacting the survey staff of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York at (212) 720-6300 or (646) 720-6300, email:
Inquiries can also be made to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, at (202) 452-3476, or to Dwight Wolkow, at (202) 622-1276, or by email:
22 U.S.C. 3101
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Surface Coating of Wood Building Products to address the results of the residual risk and technology review (RTR) that the EPA is required to conduct under the Clean Air Act (CAA). We found risks due to emissions of air toxics to be acceptable from this source category and determined that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health. We identified no new cost-effective controls under the technology review to achieve further emissions reductions. The EPA is proposing: To add an alternative compliance demonstration equation; to amend provisions addressing periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM); to amend provisions regarding electronic reporting; and to make technical and editorial changes. The EPA is proposing these amendments to improve the effectiveness of the NESHAP. This action also proposes a new EPA test method to measure isocyanate compounds in certain surface coatings.
Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers who arrive and register. If a hearing is held at a U.S. government facility, individuals planning to attend should be prepared to show a current, valid state- or federal-approved picture identification to the security staff in order to gain access to the meeting room. An expired form of identification will not be permitted. Please note that the Real ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, established new requirements for entering federal facilities. If your driver's license is issued by a noncompliant state, you must present an additional form of identification to enter a federal facility. Acceptable alternative forms of identification include: Federal employee badge, passports, enhanced driver's licenses, and military identification cards. Additional information on the Real ID Act is available at
For questions about this proposed action, contact Mr. John Bradfield, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-03), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone
Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated industrial source category that is the subject of this proposal. Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local and tribal government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As defined in the
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action is available on the Internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at:
A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678).
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401
In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process, the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d) for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different requirements for major source standards and area source standards. “Major sources” are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. All other sources are “area sources.” For major sources, CAA section 112(d) provides that the technology-based NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT “floor.” The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA discretion to set standards based on generally available control technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT standards.
The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and addressing any remaining (
The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) is a two-step approach. In the first step, the EPA determines whether risks are acceptable. This determination “considers all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR)
CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them “as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)” no less frequently than every 8 years. In conducting this review, which we call the “technology review,” the EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor.
The “Surface Coating of Wood Building Products” source category includes any facility engaged in the surface coating of wood building products, which means the application of coatings using, for example, roll coaters or curtain coaters in the finishing or laminating of any wood building product that contains more than 50 percent by weight wood or wood fiber, excluding the weight of any glass components, and is used in the construction, either interior or exterior, of a residential, commercial, or institutional building. Regulated operations include all processes and process units incorporating wood building products surface coating operations. The processes include, but are not limited to, coating application production lines, emissions capture and exhaust ducting systems, cleanup stations, coating preparation stations
This proposal includes both a residual risk assessment and a technology review of the emission sources subject to the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP, which includes numerical emission limits for five subcategories of wood building products:
• Exterior siding and primed doorskins;
• Flooring;
• Interior wall paneling or tileboard;
• Other interior panels; and
• Doors, windows, and miscellaneous.
The EPA collected data from several environmental databases that included information pertaining to wood building products manufacturing facilities with surface coating operations in the United States. The primary databases were the Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database, the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), and the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for 2011 and 2014. Title V operating permits were obtained from states that have facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ. For more details of the title V operating permit review, see the memorandum titled
In addition to the ECHO, TRI, and NEI databases, the EPA reviewed the additional information sources listed below and consulted with stakeholders regulated under the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP to determine if there have been developments in practices, processes, or control technologies by wood building products surface coating sources. These include:
• Permit limits and selected compliance options from permits collected from state agencies;
• Information on air pollution control options in the wood building products surface coating industry from the reasonably available control technology (RACT)/best achievable control technology (BACT)/lowest achievable emission limits (LAER) Clearinghouse (RBLC);
• Information on the most effective ways to control emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and volatile organic HAP (VOHAP) from sources in various industries, including the wood building products manufacturing industry;
• Product Data Sheets and Material Safety Data Sheets submitted with compliance demonstrations; and
• Communication with trade groups and associations representing industries in the affected NAICS categories and their members.
In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this proposal.
As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine whether or not risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, “the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to any single factor” and, thus, “[t]he Administrator believes that the acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of a broad set of health risk measures and information.” 54 FR 38046, September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety determination, “the Agency again considers all of the health risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant factors.”
The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index (HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.
“[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be considered, but also incidence, the presence of noncancer health effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way, the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with the
The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not attempt to quantify those HAP risks that may be associated with emissions from other facilities that do not include the source category under review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity of the sources in the category.
The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing noncancer risks, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference levels (
In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA is incorporating cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those reflected in this proposal. The Agency is (1) conducting facility-wide assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as other emission points within the facilities; (2) combining exposures from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative pollutants, analyzing the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the RTR risk assessments have always considered aggregate cancer risk from all carcinogens and aggregate noncancer HI from all noncarcinogens affecting the same target organ system.
Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-wide HAP risks in the context of total HAP risks from all sources combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the uncertainties of doing so. Because of the contribution to total HAP risk from emission sources other than those that we have studied in depth during this RTR review, such estimates of total HAP risks would have significantly greater associated uncertainties than the source category or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or cumulative assessments would compound those uncertainties, making the assessments too unreliable.
Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we identify such developments, in order to inform our decision of whether it is “necessary” to revise the emissions standards, we analyze the technical feasibility of applying these developments and the estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental impacts, and we also consider the emission reductions. In addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new sources versus retrofitting existing sources.
For this exercise, we consider any of the following to be a “development”:
• Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was not identified and considered during development of the original MACT standards;
• Any improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment (that were identified and considered during development of the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions reduction;
• Any work practice or operational procedure that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standards;
• Any process change or pollution prevention alternative that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standards; and
• Any significant changes in the cost (including cost effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed (or last updated) the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to consider. Among the sources we reviewed were the NESHAP for various industries that were promulgated since the MACT standards being reviewed in this action. We reviewed the regulatory requirements and/or technical analyses associated with these regulatory actions to identify any practices, processes, and control technologies considered in these efforts that could be applied to emission sources in the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products source category, as well as the costs, non-air impacts, and energy implications associated with the use of these technologies. Finally, we reviewed information from other sources, such as state and/or local permitting agency databases and industry-supported databases.
The EPA conducted a risk assessment that provides estimates of the MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risks within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental effects. The seven sections that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this rulemaking contains the following document which provides more information on the risk assessment
Data were extracted from the ECHO database to determine which facilities were potentially subject to the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP to develop a facility list. The ECHO database provides integrated compliance and enforcement information for about 800,000 regulated facilities nationwide and it allows for the search of information on permit data, inspection dates and findings, violations, and enforcement actions. For more details on ECHO, see
As discussed in section II.C of this preamble, we used data from facility permits, the 2014 NEI (version 1), and the TRI as the basis for the emissions used in the risk assessment for the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products source category. The NEI is a database that contains information about sources that emit criteria air pollutants (CAP), CAP precursors, and HAP. The NEI is released every 3 years based primarily on data provided by state, local, and tribal air agencies for sources in their jurisdictions and supplemented with data developed by the EPA. The NEI database includes estimates of actual annual air pollutant emissions from point and fugitive sources and emission release characteristic data, such as emission release height, temperature, diameter, velocity, and flow rates. The NEI database also includes locational latitude/longitude coordinates. For more details on the NEI, see
We began compiling an initial draft residual risk modeling input file for use in the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP residual risk review in 2016.
We estimated actual emissions based on the 2014 NEI, preferentially, and subsequent site-specific inventory revisions provided by states or individual facilities. Where 2014 NEI data were not available for a facility, we used data from the 2011 NEI and then the 2014 TRI. Using this combination of EPA databases, we collected emissions information on the 55 sources in the category. We identified nine facilities that reported zero HAP emissions for the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products source category, and they were excluded from the risk modeling file. As a result, the risk modeling file characterized the impact of emissions from 46 sources.
The total HAP emissions for the source category, which were included in the modeling file, are approximately 260 tpy. Based on the available data, the HAP emitted in the largest quantities are methanol, toluene, xylenes, ethyl benzene, methyl isobutyl ketone, glycol ethers, vinyl acetate, ethylene glycol, methyl methacrylate, formaldehyde, and dimethyl phthalate. Other than lead, persistent and bioaccumulative HAP (PB-HAP) were not reported as being emitted from this source category. Therefore, the only assessment of multipathway risk was for lead, and that assessment compared the ambient air lead concentrations to the lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Further information about the multipathway analysis performed for this category follows in section III.C.3.d.
The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time period. These “actual” emission levels are often lower than the emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT standards. The emissions level allowed to be emitted under the MACT standards is referred to as the “MACT-allowable” emissions level. We discussed the use of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTRs (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, we noted that assessing the risks at the MACT-allowable level is inherently reasonable since these risks reflect the maximum level facilities could emit and still comply with national emission standards. We also explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989.)
Actual emissions are often lower than MACT-allowable emissions due to compliance margins, more stringent state or local rules, or over-control due to use of control technologies, equipment, or work practices that are significantly better than required to meet the NESHAP limits. However, over 90 percent of wood building products manufacturers use compliant coatings with low- or no-HAP emissions and production rate limits. We assume that coatings in the category are engineered to meet the standard with a reasonable compliance margin. For those operations, we would expect actual emissions to equal MACT-allowable emissions, because of the use of the compliant coatings and/or low-HAP coatings. Additionally, for new sources,
3. How did we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risks?
Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations and health risks from the source category addressed in this proposal were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3). The HEM-3 performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources, and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risks using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response information.
The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM-3 model, is one of the EPA's preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations from industrial facilities.
In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we used the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted by each source for which we have emissions data in the source category. The air concentrations at each nearby census block centroid were used as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for all the people who reside in that census block. We calculated the MIR for each facility as the cancer risk associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year, for a 70-year period) exposure to the maximum concentration at the centroid of inhabited census blocks. Individual cancer risks were calculated by multiplying the estimated lifetime exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m
To estimate incremental individual lifetime cancer risks associated with emissions from the facilities in the source category, the EPA summed the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP
To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected from one of several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-response value is the EPA RfC (
For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks due to acute exposure. For these assessments, in order to avoid under-estimating effects, the EPA makes conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and exposure location. We use the peak hourly emission rate,
To characterize the potential health risks associated with estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use multiple acute dose-response values, including acute RELs, acute exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations), if available, to calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the estimated acute exposure by the acute dose-response value. For each HAP for which acute dose-response values are available, the EPA calculates acute HQs.
An acute REL is defined as “the concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified exposure duration.”
ERPGs are developed for emergency planning and are intended as health-based guideline concentrations for single exposures to chemicals.”
An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than its corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1. Even though their definitions are slightly different, AEGL-1s are often the same as the corresponding ERPG-1s, and AEGL-2s are often equal to ERPG-2s. The maximum HQs from our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1).
For this source category, we did not have short-term emissions data; therefore, we estimated the peak, short-term emissions using available annual emissions data from the NEI. We assumed that the peak, 1-hour emission rate could exceed a facility's annual average hourly emission rate by as much as a factor of 10, under worst-case meteorological conditions. For facilities that used compliant coatings, the default acute multiplier of 10 is overly conservative because compliant coatings result in an emissions profile that is not expected to have significant fluctuations in HAP emissions. Further review of permits found that two facilities utilizing the compliant coating approach only operate coating operations for one 8-hour shift per day, therefore, an acute multiplier of 3 was used. The default multiplier of 10 was applied to all other facilities. A further discussion of why these factors were chosen can be found in the memorandum,
In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts are deemed negligible for HAP where acute HQs are less than or equal to 1 (even under the conservative assumptions of the screening assessment), and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we consider additional site-specific data to develop a more refined estimate of the potential for acute impacts of concern. For this source category, we refined our analysis by reviewing the receptor locations where the maximum HQ occurred. These refinements are discussed more fully in the
The EPA conducted a tiered screening assessment examining the potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via routes other than inhalation (
For the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products source category, we did not identify emissions of any PB-HAP except for lead compounds, for which the lead NAAQS was applied to assess multipathway impacts. Because we did not identify PB-HAP emissions requiring further evaluation, no further evaluation of multipathway risk was conducted for this source category.
In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of lead compounds, rather than developing a screening threshold emission rate, we compare maximum estimated chronic inhalation exposure concentrations with the level of the current NAAQS for lead.
For further information on the multipathway assessment approach, see the
The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential for adverse environmental effects as required under section 112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines “adverse environmental effect” as “any significant and widespread adverse effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of environmental quality over broad areas.”
The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as “environmental HAP,” in its screening assessment: six PB-HAP and two acid gases. The PB-HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, polycyclic organic matter, mercury (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid gases included in the screening assessment are hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF).
The HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The acid gases, HCl and HF, were included due to their well-documented potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following four exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes water-column and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological entity and its attributes. For PB-HAP (other than lead), both community-level and population-level endpoints are included. For acid gases, the ecological assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant communities.
An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each environmental HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks for each assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable effect levels, lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, and no-observed-adverse-effect level. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a particular PB-HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all of the available effect levels to help us to determine whether ecological risks exist and, if so, whether the risks could be considered significant and widespread.
For further information on how the environmental risk screening assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the
For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first determined whether any facilities in the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products source category emitted any of the environmental HAP. For the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products source category, we identified emissions of lead compounds.
Because one or more of the environmental HAP evaluated are emitted by at least one facility in the source category, we proceeded to the second step of the evaluation.
To evaluate the potential for adverse environmental effects from lead, we compared the average modeled air concentrations (from HEM-3) of lead around each facility in the source category to the level of the secondary NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable means of evaluating environmental risk because it is set to provide substantial protection against adverse welfare effects which
To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine the risks from the entire “facility,” where the facility includes all HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data.
For this source category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment using a dataset that the EPA compiled from the 2014 NEI. We used the NEI data for the facility and did not adjust any category or “non-category” data. Therefore, there could be differences in the dataset from that used for the source category assessments described in this preamble. We analyzed risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are emitted “facility-wide” for the populations residing within 50 km of each facility, consistent with the methods used for the source category analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk analyses, we made a reasonable attempt to identify the source category risks, and these risks were compared to the facility-wide risks to determine the portion of facility-wide risks that could be attributed to the source category addressed in this proposal. We also specifically examined the facility that was associated with the highest estimate of risk and determined the percentage of that risk attributable to the source category of interest. The
Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used conservative tools and assumptions in order to avoid under-estimating effects, ensures that our decisions are health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling, inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of these uncertainties is included in the
Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved quality assurance/quality control (QC) processes, the accuracy of emissions values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission estimates, and other factors. The emission estimates considered in this analysis generally are annual totals for certain years, and they do not reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly emission rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on an emission adjustment factor applied to the average annual hourly emission rates, which are intended to account for emission fluctuations due to normal facility operations.
We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration estimates associated with any model, including the EPA's recommended regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (
Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risks or the incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected. With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the block centroids to better represent the population in the blocks. We also add additional receptor locations where the population of a block is not well represented by a single location.
There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively, and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note,
Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk. That is, they represent a “plausible upper limit to the true value of a quantity” (although this is usually not a true statistical confidence limit).
Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations at one exposure duration (
Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (
Although every effort is made to identify appropriate human health effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the sources in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by this source category are lacking dose-response assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants cannot be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could result in quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to alleviate this potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity with a HAP for which a dose-response value is available, we use that value as a surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value is available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable risk, we may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS assessment for that substance. We additionally note that, generally speaking, HAP of greatest concern due to environmental exposures and hazard are those for which dose-response assessments have been performed, reducing the likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP not included in the quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively and considered in the risk characterization that informs the risk management decisions, including consideration of HAP reductions achieved by various control options.
For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (
In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of humans at the location of the maximum concentration. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and worst-case meteorological conditions co-occur, thus, resulting in maximum ambient concentrations. These two events are unlikely to occur at the same time, making these assumptions conservative in the sense that they may over-estimate effects. We then include the additional assumption that a person is located at this point during this same time period. For this source category, these assumptions would tend to be worst-case actual exposures as it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and worst-case meteorological conditions occur simultaneously.
As described above, for the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products source category, we conducted an inhalation risk assessment for all HAP emitted, and multipathway and environmental risk screening assessments on the only PB-HAP emitted, lead. We present results of the risk assessment briefly below and in more detail in the residual risk document titled
Table 2 of this preamble provides an overall summary of the results of the inhalation risk assessment. As discussed in section III.C.2 of this preamble, we set MACT-allowable HAP emission levels equal to actual emissions. For more detail about the MACT-allowable emission levels, see the memorandum,
The inhalation risk modeling performed to estimate risks based on actual and allowable emissions relied primarily on emissions data from the NEI. The results of the inhalation cancer risk assessment, as shown in Table 2 of this preamble, indicate that the MIR could be up to 6-in-1 million, with formaldehyde from the melamine laminating process as the sole contributor (100 percent) to the MIR. The total estimated cancer incidence from wood building product coating sources based on actual emission levels is 0.0006 excess cancer cases per year or one case every 1,667 years, with emissions of formaldehyde (35 percent), naphthalene (27 percent), ethyl benzene (21 percent), and chromium (VI) compounds (17 percent) contributing to the cancer incidence. In addition, we estimate that approximately 800 people have cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million.
The maximum modeled chronic noncancer HI (TOSHI) value for the source category based on actual emissions is estimated to be 0.05, with emissions of formaldehyde from the melamine laminating process as the sole contributor (100 percent) to the TOSHI. The target organ affected is the respiratory system. There are not any people estimated to have exposure to HI levels greater than 1 as a result of emissions from this source category.
Table 2 of this preamble shows the acute risk results for this category. The screening analysis for acute impacts was based on actual emissions, and to estimate the peak emission rates from the average rates, an industry-specific multiplier of 3 was used for two facilities, and a default factor of 10 was used for the remaining facilities. The results of the acute screening analysis indicate that the maximum off-facility-site acute HQ is 1, based on the REL value for formaldehyde, and occurs at two facilities. One of these two facilities used the acute factor of 3 to characterize short-term emissions, while the other used the factor of 10. For all other HAP and facilities, acute HQ values are less than 1. Refer to the document titled
The only PB-HAP emitted by facilities in this source category is lead. Results of the analysis for lead indicate that based on actual emissions, the maximum annual off-site ambient lead concentration was only 0.1 percent of the primary NAAQS for lead, and if the total annual emissions occurred during a 3-month period, the maximum 3-month rolling average concentration would still be only 0.5 percent of the NAAQS. Therefore, we do not expect any human health multipathway risks as a result of emissions from this source category.
The only environmental HAP emitted by facilities in this source category is lead. Results of the analysis for lead indicate that based on actual emissions, the maximum annual off-site ambient lead concentration was only 0.1 percent of the secondary NAAQS for lead, and if the total annual emissions occurred during a 3-month period, the maximum 3-month rolling average concentration would still be only 0.5 percent of the NAAQS. Therefore, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category.
An assessment of the facility-wide risks was performed to provide context for the source category risks, using NEI data as described above. The maximum facility-wide cancer MIR is 30-in-1 million, mainly driven by formaldehyde, chromium (VI) compounds, and nickel compounds emissions from wood drying and enamel coating operations. Wood drying is regulated under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, the Plywood and Composite Wood Products NESHAP, and enamel coating is regulated under 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR, the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture NESHAP. Risk and technology reviews are currently underway for both NESHAP categories. The total estimated cancer incidence from the facility-wide assessment is 0.004 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every 250 years. Approximately 26,000 people are estimated to have cancer risks greater than 1-in-1 million from exposure to HAP emitted from both MACT and non-MACT sources. The maximum facility-wide TOSHI is estimated to be 7, mainly driven by emissions of acrolein from industrial processes related to wood products that are characterized as “other, not classified” in NEI. Wood drying, regulated under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, noted above, is presumably the source of the acrolein since the facilities identified as sources also dry wood. We estimate that
To examine the potential for any environmental justice (EJ) issues that might be associated with the source category, we performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products source category across different demographic groups within the populations living near facilities.
The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 3 below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the estimated risks from actual emissions levels for the population living within 50 km of the facilities.
The results of the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products source category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 800 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The percentages of the at-risk population are greater than their respective nationwide percentages for the following demographic groups (excluding non-Hispanic): African American, people over 25 without a high school diploma, and people living below the poverty level. The other demographic groups within the exposed population were similar to or lower than the corresponding nationwide percentages.
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented in a technical report,
As noted in section II.A of this preamble, the EPA sets standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) using “a two-step standard-setting approach, with an analytical first step to determine an ‘acceptable risk' that considers all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of “approximately 1-in-10 thousand” (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). We weigh all health risk factors in our risk
For this risk assessment, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and allowable emissions from wood building products surface coating sources. Allowable emissions were estimated to be equal to actual emissions. The estimated inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed to emissions from the source category is 6-in-1-million. Approximately 800 people face an increased cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million due to inhalation exposure to HAP emissions from this source category. The risk analysis indicates very low cancer incidence (0.0006 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case every 1,667 years), as well as low potential for adverse chronic noncancer health effects. The acute screening assessment indicates no pollutants or facilities exceeding an HQ value of 1. Therefore, we find there is little potential concern of acute noncancer health impacts. In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions of lead from the source category, the risk assessment indicates no significant potential for multipathway effects.
Considering all of the health risk information and factors discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section III of this preamble, the EPA proposes that the risks from the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products source category are acceptable.
As directed by CAA section 112(f)(2), we conducted an analysis to determine if the current emissions standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Under the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA considers all health factors evaluated in the risk assessment and evaluates the cost and feasibility of available control technologies and other measures (including the controls, measures, and costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be applied to this source category to further reduce the risks (or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP identified in our risk assessment. In this analysis, we considered the results of the technology review, risk assessment, and other aspects of our MACT rule review to determine whether there are any cost-effective controls or other measures that would reduce emissions further to provide an ample margin of safety with respect to the risks associated with these emissions.
Although we are proposing that the risks from this source category are acceptable, risk estimates for approximately 800 people in the exposed population are above 1-in-1 million, caused by formaldehyde emissions from one facility. The maximum acute risk is an HQ of 1 also caused by formaldehyde. As a result, we further considered whether the MACT standards for this source category provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
Our technology review did not identify any new practices, controls, or process options that are being used in this industry, or in other industries, that would be cost effective and result in further reduction of formaldehyde emissions.
Because no new controls, technologies, processes, or work practices were identified to reduce formaldehyde emissions and the risk assessment determined that the health risks associated with HAP emissions remaining after implementation of the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products MACT were acceptable, we are proposing that the current standards protect public health with an ample margin of safety.
The emissions data for this source category indicate the presence of one environmental HAP, lead, emitted by sources within this source category. Based on the results of our environmental risk screening assessment, we conclude that there is not an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from the Surface Coatings of Wood Building Products source category.
Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires a review of “developments in practices, processes and control technologies” in each source category as part of the technology review process. For this technology review, the “developments” we consider include:
• Add-on control technology that was not identified during the NESHAP development;
• improvement to an existing add-on control technology resulting in significant additional HAP emissions reductions;
• work practice or operational procedure that was not previously identified;
• process change or pollution prevention alternative that was not identified; or
• a coating formulation or application technique that was not previously identified.
Our review of the developments in technology for the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products source category did not reveal any changes that require revisions to the emission standards. In the original NESHAP, it was noted that “the most prevalent form of emission control for surface coating of wood building products is the use of low-VOC and low-HAP coatings, such as waterborne or ultraviolet-cured coatings.”
Our review did not identify any new or improved add-on control technology, any new work practices, operational procedures, process changes, or new pollution prevention approaches that reduce emissions in the category that have been implemented at wood building products surface coating
In addition to the proposed determinations described above, we are proposing additional revisions. We are proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in
In its 2008 decision in
We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule, which appears at 40 CFR 63.4700, 40 CFR 63.4720, and in Table 4 to Subpart QQQQ of Part 63. Consistent with
The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on whether we have successfully done so. The EPA believes the removal of the SSM exemption creates no additional burden to facilities regulated under the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP. Deviations currently addressed by a facility's SSM Plan are required to be reported in the Semiannual Compliance Report, a requirement that remains under the proposal (40 CFR 63.4720). Facilities will no longer need to develop an SSM Plan or keep it current (Table 4, 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ). Facilities will also no longer have to file special SSM reports for deviations not described in the their SSM Plan [40 CFR 63.4720(c)(2)]. We are specifically seeking comment on whether we have successfully removed SSM exemptions without adding unforeseen burden.
For add-on control systems, the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP requires the measurement of thermal oxidizer (TO) operating temperature or catalytic oxidizer (CO) average temperature across the catalyst bed as well as other types of parameter monitoring. Parameter limits apply at all times, including during periods of startup and shutdown. The Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP requires TO or CO operating temperature and other add-on control device operating parameters to be recorded at least once every 15 minutes. The Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP specifies in 40 CFR 63.4763(c) that if an operating parameter is out of the allowed range, this is a deviation from the operating limit and must be reported as specified in 40 CFR 63.4710(c)(6) and 63.4720(a)(7).
Our permit review of the facilities using add-on control as a compliance approach indicated that all were required, by permit, to have their control system in operation during all time periods when coating processes were operational. The rule requires compliance based on a 12-month rolling average emissions calculation. Periods of startup and shutdown are included, but, because of operational requirements in the category, are a very small component of the emissions calculation. Therefore, we are not proposing separate standards for startup and/or shutdown periods.
As the Court recognized in
Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events because information was available to determine that such work practices reflected the level of control that applies to the best performing sources. 80 FR 75178, 75211-14 (December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether circumstances warrant setting work practice standards for a particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide any such information.
In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable and was not instead caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction).
If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement action against a source for violation of an emission standard is warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate.
In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, CAA section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those situations.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)-(2) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) and changing the “yes” in column 3 to a “no.” Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate considering the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.4700(b) that reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate between normal operations and SSM events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR 63.4700(b) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4) to add an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) and include a “no” in column 3. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.4700(b).
We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4) to add an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(iii) and include a “yes” in column 3.
Finally, we are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4) to add an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(2) and include a “no” in column 3. This paragraph is reserved and is not applicable to 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4) to add an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) and include a “no” in column 3. Generally, these paragraphs require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance, and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4) entries for 40 CFR 63.6(f) and (h) by re-designating these sections as 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) and including a “no” in column 3. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) excludes sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM, while the current language in 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) excludes sources from opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e) by re-designating it as 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) and including a “yes” in column 3. Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. Section 63.4764(a) of the current rule specifies that performance testing must be conducted when the emission capture system and add-on control device are operating at representative conditions. You must document why the conditions represent normal operation. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA is proposing to add language that requires the owner or operator to record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operations. Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator make available to the Administrator such records “as may be necessary to determine the condition of the performance test” available to the Administrator upon request, but does not specifically require the information to be recorded. The regulatory text the EPA is proposing to add to this provision builds on that requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the information.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4) by re-designating 40 CFR 63.8(c) as 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1), adding entries for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) through (iii) and including “no” in column 3 for paragraphs (i) and (iii). The cross-references to the general duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary considering other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a QC program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) and including a “no” in column 3. Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal operations will apply to startup and shutdown. Special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown plan, have been removed from the rule (with exceptions discussed below), thereby reducing the need for additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods.
We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v) and including a “no” in column 3. When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) and including a “no” in column 3. The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer applies. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept to satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the “yes” in column 3 to a “no.” Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirement for malfunctions, the EPA is proposing to replace the SSM report under 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) with the existing reporting requirements under 40 CFR 63.4720(a). The replacement language differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning such events in the semiannual report to be required under the proposed rule. We are proposing that the report must contain the number, date, time, duration, and the cause of such events (including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
Examples of such methods would include mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an applicable standard.
We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments, therefore, eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the previously required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
The proposed amendments also eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii). Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for startups, shutdown, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an applicable standard, but did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer require owners and operators to report when actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required.
An alternative monitoring request was submitted to the EPA which proposed utilizing a HAP emission factor to demonstrate compliance with the emission rate without add-on controls compliance option instead of the current emission factor in the rule which assumes that all HAP in the coating is emitted to the atmosphere. As discussed below, we are proposing to include this compliance calculation approach in this rulemaking to allow any facility utilizing a similar process to use the approach without requiring the submittal of an alternative monitoring request to the EPA under the provisions of 40 CFR 63.8(f). The proposed amendment adds compliance flexibility, but does not alter the emission standard.
The coating process uses a liquid catalyst to initiate chemical and physical change of the coating materials by the formation of a cross-linked polymer, and involves spraying wood panels with a two-part mixture consisting of a HAP-containing resin and a non-HAP catalyst. The catalyst polymerizes the resin to form the applied coating within a matter of seconds. The result is that the HAP in the resin is nearly completely polymerized and, as a result, the air emissions of HAP are a very small fraction of the total HAP applied.
We are proposing to add a new equation to the existing compliance demonstration calculations to more adequately represent the HAP amounts emitted by this type of surface coating or any similar coating. The existing equation assumes that all of the HAP in the coating is emitted. Facilities wishing to apply this emission calculation method could submit to the EPA an alternative monitoring request, however, this would add a compliance burden. To reduce the burden, we are adding alternative compliance demonstration equations, which do not assume 100 percent of the HAP in the coating is emitted. The proposed demonstration equations would use a HAP emission factor based on initial stack testing of the proposed coating process. This approach quantifies emissions in a way that is representative of the actual emissions from this coating operation.
The EPA is proposing amendments to the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP that would provide an additional compliance demonstration equation. Facilities using the proposed alternative compliance demonstration equation (40 CFR 63.4751(i)) of the emission rate without add-on controls option would be required to conduct an initial performance test to demonstrate compliance. As explained in the technical supporting memoranda accompanying this proposal,
Additionally, the EPA is requesting comment on whether a periodic emissions testing provision should be added to the rule for sources using add-on controls. Currently, there are four existing facilities that have operating permits indicating the use of add-on control devices for wood building product surface coating operations. Only one of those facilities is not conducting a performance test on at least a 5-year frequency due to state requirements. The repeat performance testing provision on which the Agency is requesting comment would impact this facility if the provisions were finalized, with an estimated cost of $22,000 for each repeat performance test. The periodic testing provision on which the Agency is requesting comment would also require facilities utilizing the proposed alternative compliance demonstration equations (40 CFR 63.4751(i)) of the emission rate without add-on controls option to conduct a periodic air emissions performance test to develop process specific emissions factors to demonstrate continuing compliance. The periodic testing provision which the EPA is requesting comment would require one performance test at least every 5 years. The inclusion of a periodic repeat testing requirement would help demonstrate that emissions control equipment is continuing to operate as designed and that the facility remains in compliance with the standard.
The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ submit electronic copies of compliance reports, which include performance test reports, semiannual reports, and notifications, through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). Specifically, we are proposing that owners and operators create performance test reports using the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) and submit the performance test reports, as well as notifications and semiannual reports through CEDRI. The EPA believes that the electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability, will further assist in the protection of public health and the environment, and will ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community. Under current requirements, paper reports are often stored in filing cabinets or boxes, which make the reports more difficult to obtain and use for data analysis and sharing. Electronic storage of such reports makes data more accessible for review, analysis, and sharing. Electronic reporting also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors and providing data quickly and accurately to affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public.
In 2011, in response to Executive Order 13563, the EPA developed a plan
The EPA website that stores the submitted electronic data, WebFIRE, is easily accessible to everyone and provides a user-friendly interface that any stakeholder can access. By making data readily available, electronic reporting increases the amount of data that can be used for many purposes. One example is the development of emissions factors. An emissions factor is a representative value that attempts to relate the quantity of a pollutant released to the atmosphere with an activity associated with the release of that pollutant (
The EPA has received feedback from stakeholders asserting that many of the EPA's emissions factors are outdated or not representative of a particular industry emission source. While the EPA believes that the emissions factors are suitable for their intended purpose, we recognize that the quality of emissions factors varies based on the extent and quality of underlying data. We also recognize that emissions profiles on different pieces of equipment can change over time due to a number of factors (fuel changes, equipment improvements, industry work practices), and it is important for emissions factors to be updated to keep up with these changes. The EPA is currently pursuing emissions factor development improvements that include procedures to incorporate the source test data that we are proposing be submitted electronically. By requiring the electronic submission of the reports identified in this proposed action, the EPA would be able to access and use the submitted data to update emissions factors more quickly and efficiently, creating factors that are characteristic of what is currently representative of the relevant industry sector. Likewise, an increase in the number of test reports used to develop the emissions factors will provide more confidence that the factor is of higher quality and representative of the whole industry sector.
Additionally, by making the records, data, and reports addressed in this proposed rulemaking readily available, the EPA, the regulated community, and the public will benefit when the EPA conducts its CAA-required technology and risk-based reviews. As a result of having performance test reports and air emission data readily accessible, our ability to carry out comprehensive reviews will be increased and achieved within a shorter period of time. These data will provide useful information on control efficiencies being achieved and maintained in practice within a source category and across source categories for regulated sources and pollutants. These reports can also be used to inform the technology-review process by providing information on improvements to add-on control technology and new control technology.
Under an electronic reporting system, the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) would have air emissions and performance test data in hand; OAQPS would not have to collect these data from the EPA Regional offices or from delegated authorities or industry sources in cases where these reports are not submitted to the EPA Regional offices. Thus, we anticipate fewer or less substantial information collection requests (ICRs) may be needed in conjunction with prospective CAA-required technology and risk-based reviews. We expect this to result in a decrease in time spent by industry to respond to data collection requests. We also expect the ICRs to contain less extensive stack testing provisions, as we will already have stack test data electronically. Reduced testing requirements would be a cost savings to industry. The EPA should also be able to conduct these required reviews more quickly, as OAQPS will not have to include the ICR collection time in the process or spend time collecting reports from the EPA Regional offices. While the regulated community may benefit from a reduced burden of ICRs, the general public benefits from the Agency's ability to provide these required reviews more quickly, resulting in increased public health and environmental protection.
Electronic reporting minimizes submission of unnecessary or duplicative reports in cases where facilities report to multiple government agencies and the agencies opt to rely on the EPA's electronic reporting system to view report submissions. Where delegated authorities continue to require a paper copy of these reports and will accept a hard copy of the electronic report, facilities will have the option to print paper copies of the electronic reporting forms to submit to the delegated authorities, and, thus, minimize the time spent reporting to multiple agencies. Additionally, maintenance and storage costs associated with retaining paper records could likewise be minimized by replacing those records with electronic records of electronically submitted data and reports.
Delegated authorities could benefit from more streamlined and automated review of the electronically submitted data. For example, because performance test data would be readily-available in a standard electronic format, delegated authorities would be able to review reports and data electronically rather than having to conduct a review of the reports and data manually. Having reports and associated data in electronic format facilitates review through the use of software “search” options, as well as the downloading and analyzing of data in spreadsheet format. Additionally, delegated authorities would benefit from the reported data being accessible to them through the EPA's electronic reporting system wherever and whenever they want or need access, as long as they have access to the Internet. The ability to access and review reports electronically assists delegated authorities in determining compliance with applicable regulations more quickly and accurately, potentially allowing a faster response to violations, which could minimize harmful air emissions. This change benefits both delegated authorities and the public.
The proposed electronic reporting of data is consistent with electronic data trends (
As noted above, we are proposing that 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ performance test reports be submitted through the EPA's ERT. With the exception of the method proposed in conjunction with this rulemaking, all test methods listed under 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ are currently supported by the ERT. The proposal would require that performance test results collected using test methods that are not supported by the ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site at the time of the test be submitted to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in 40 CFR 63.13, unless the Administrator agrees to or specifies an alternate reporting method.
In addition to electronically reporting the results of performance tests, we are proposing the requirement to electronically submit notifications and the semiannual compliance report required in 40 CFR 63.4720. The proposal would require the owner or operator use the appropriate spreadsheet template in CEDRI for the subpart. If the reporting template specific to the subpart is not available at the time that the report is due, the owner or operator would submit the report to the Administrator at the appropriate addresses listed in the General Provisions. The owner or operator would begin submitting reports electronically with the next report that is due, once the electronic template has been available for at least 1 year. The EPA is currently working to develop the templates for 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ. We are specifically taking comment on the content, layout, and overall design of the spreadsheet templates, which are presented as an Excel spreadsheet in the docket titled
As stated in 40 CFR 63.4720(d)(2), the proposal also requires that notifications be reported electronically though CEDRI. Currently, there are no templates for notifications in CEDRI for this subpart. Therefore, the owner or operator must submit these notifications in portable document format (PDF).
Additionally, we have identified two broad circumstances in which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both circumstances, the decision to accept your claim of needing additional time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible.
In 40 CFR 63.4720(d)(3), we address the situation where an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI which preclude you from accessing the system and submitting required reports. If either the CDX or CEDRI is unavailable at any time beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due, and the unavailability prevents the submission of a report by the required date, the facility may assert a claim of EPA system outage. We consider 5 business days prior to the reporting deadline to be an appropriate timeframe because if the system is down prior to this time, facilities will have 1 week to complete reporting once the system is back online. However, if the CDX or CEDRI is down during the week a report is due, we realize that this could greatly impact the ability to submit a required report on time. We will notify facilities about known outages as far in advance as possible by CHIEF Listserv notice, posting on the CEDRI Web site and posting on the CDX Web site so that facilities can plan accordingly and still meet the reporting deadline. However, if a planned or unplanned outage occurs and a facility believes that it will affect or it has affected compliance with an electronic reporting requirement, we have provided a process to assert such a claim.
In 40 CFR 63.4720(d)(4), we address the situation where an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents compliance with the requirement to submit a report electronically as required by this rule. Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility. If such an event occurs or is still occurring or if there are still linger effects of the event in the 5 business days prior to a submission deadline, we have provided a process to assert a claim of force majeure.
We are providing these potential extensions to protect facilities from noncompliance in cases when a facility cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for reasons outside of its control as described above. We are not providing an extension for other instances. Facility representatives should register for CEDRI far in advance of the initial compliance date in order to make sure that they can complete the identity proofing process prior to the initial compliance date. Additionally, we recommend developing reports early, in case any questions arise during the reporting process.
We are proposing EPA Method 326 to address technical issues related to VOHAP content measured in certain surface coatings containing isocyanates. Because there is currently no EPA test method for isocyanate emissions, as part of this action, we are proposing specific isocyanate compound sample collection and analytical requirements as Method 326 of 40 CFR part 63, Appendix A. Method 326 is based on “A Method for Measuring Isocyanates in Stationary Source Emissions” which was proposed on December 8, 1997 (62 FR 64532) as Method 207, but was never promulgated. Method 326 does not significantly modify the sampling and analytical techniques of the previously proposed method, but includes additional QC procedures and associated performance criteria to ensure the overall quality of the measurement.
Method 326 is based on the EPA Method 5 sampling train employing a derivatizing reagent [1-(2-pyridyl) piperazine in toluene] in the impingers to immediately stabilize the isocyanate compounds upon collection. Collected samples are analyzed using high performance liquid chromatography and an appropriate detector under laboratory conditions sufficient to separate and quantify the isocyanate compounds.
The sampling and analytical techniques were validated at three sources according to EPA Method 301 (40 CFR 63, Appendix A) and the report of this validation, titled
The EPA is proposing regulatory text that includes IBR. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the following voluntary consensus standards (VCS) described in the amendments to 40 CFR 63.14:
• ANSI A135.4-2012, Basic Hardboard, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.4781.
• ASTM D1475-90, Standard Test Method for Density of Paint, Varnish Lacquer, and Related Products, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.4741(b) and (c) and 63.4751(c).
• ASTM D1963-85 (1996), Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related Materials at 25/25°C, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.4741(a) and 63.4761(j).
• ASTM D2111-95 (2000), Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.4741(a) and 63.4761(j).
• ASTM D2369-01, Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.4741(a) and 63.4761(j).
• ASTM D2697-86 (Reapproved 1998), Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.4741(a) and (b) and 63.4761(j).
• ASTM D4840-99, Standard Guide for Sampling Chain-of-Custody Procedures, IBR approved for Method 326 in appendix A to part 63.
• ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003), Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.4741(a) and (b) and 63.4761(j).
• ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, including Annexes A1 through A8, Approved October 1, 2010, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.4751(i) and 63.4766(b).
While the ASTM methods D2697-86 and D6093-97 were incorporated by reference when 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ was originally promulgated (68 FR 31760), the methods are being cited in additional paragraphs in the proposed rule, requiring a revision to their IBR. The ANSI method and the other ASTM methods are being incorporated by reference for 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ for the first time under this rulemaking.
The following are additional proposed changes that address technical and editorial corrections:
• Revised the monitoring requirements section in 40 CFR 63.4764 to clarify ongoing compliance provisions to address startup and shutdown periods when certain parameters cannot be met;
• Revised the recordkeeping requirements section in 40 CFR 63.4730 to include the requirement to record information on failures to meet the applicable standard;
• Revised the terminology in the delegation of authority section in 40 CFR 63.4780 to match the definitions in 40 CFR 63.90;
• Revised the references to several test method appendices; and
• Revised the General Provisions applicability table (Table 4 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ) to align with those sections of the General Provisions that have been amended or reserved over time.
The EPA is proposing that existing affected sources must comply with the amendments in this rulemaking no later than 180 days after the effective date of the final rule. The EPA is also proposing that affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after May 16, 2018 must comply with all requirements of the subpart, including the amendments being proposed, no later than the effective date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later. All affected existing facilities would have to continue to meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ until the applicable compliance date of the amended rule. The final action is not expected to be a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10). For existing sources, we are proposing two changes that would impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add a requirement that notifications, performance test results, and the semiannual reports using the new template be submitted electronically. We are also proposing to change the requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan. Additionally, we are proposing to add a new compliance demonstration equation that adds flexibility to meeting the standard, but this change does not affect ongoing compliance. Our experience with similar industries that are required to convert reporting mechanisms, install necessary hardware, install necessary software, become familiar with the process of submitting performance test results electronically through the EPA's CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, reliably employ electronic reporting, and convert logistics of reporting processes to different time-reporting parameters, shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 days, and more typically 180 days, is generally necessary to successfully complete these changes. Our experience with similar industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended rule requirements; evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in the rule and make any necessary adjustments; adjust parameter monitoring and recording systems to accommodate revisions; and update their operations to reflect the revised requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different compliance dates for individual requirements would create and the additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our assessment of the timeframe needed for compliance with the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance period practicable, and, thus, is proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with all of this regulation's revised requirements within 180 days of the regulation's effective date. We solicit comment on this proposed compliance period, and we specifically request submission of information from sources in this source category regarding specific actions that would need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in changes to the proposed compliance date.
There are currently 55 wood building product manufacturing facilities operating in the United States that conduct surface coating operations and are subject to the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP. The 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ affected source is the collection of all the items listed in 40 CFR 63.4682(b)(1) through (4) that are used for surface coating of wood building products. A new affected source is a completely new wood building products surface coating source where previously no wood building products surface coating source had existed.
At the current level of control, emissions of total HAP are approximately 260 tpy. Compared to pre-MACT levels, this represents a significant reduction of HAP for the category. Prior to the development of the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP, the EPA estimated HAP emissions to be 14,311 tons annually.
Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would result from the increased electricity usage associated with the operation of control devices (
For further information, see the memorandum titled
We estimate that each facility in the source category will experience costs as a result of these proposed amendments that are estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs. Each facility will experience costs to read and understand the rule amendments. Costs associated with the elimination of the SSM exemption were estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs and include time for re-evaluating previously developed SSM record systems. Costs associated with the requirement to electronically submit notifications and semi-annual compliance reports using CEDRI were estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs and include time for becoming familiar with CEDRI and the reporting template for semi-annual compliance reports. The recordkeeping and reporting costs are presented in section V.III.C of this preamble.
The EPA estimates that one facility will be impacted from this proposed regulatory action. This facility will conduct an initial performance test to demonstrate compliance with the proposed alternative compliance equation, as proposed in their request for an alternative monitoring method. This initial performance test has a one-time cost of $22,000. The total estimated labor costs for the rule are summarized in the Supporting Statement for the ICR in the docket for this action. The estimated labor cost includes an estimated labor cost of $36,618 for all 55 affected facilities to become familiar with the proposed rule requirements. For further information, see the memorandum titled
Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with a proposed rule and the distribution of these costs among affected facilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in response to a proposed rule.
For the one facility expected to conduct an initial performance test and become familiar with the proposed rule requirements, the costs associated with 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ's proposed requirements are less than 0.001 percent of annual sales revenues. For the remaining 54 facilities, the costs associated with becoming familiar with the proposed rule requirements are also less than 0.001 percent of annual sales revenues. These costs are not expected to result in a significant market impact, regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms.
The EPA did not propose changes to the emission limit requirements and estimates the proposed changes to SSM, recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring are not economically significant. Because these proposed amendments are not considered economically significant, as defined by Executive Order 12866 and because no emission reductions were estimated, we did not estimate any benefits from reducing emissions.
We solicit comments on all aspects of this proposed action. In addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such data should include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII of this preamble provides more information on submitting data.
The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for download on the RTR website at
If you believe that the data are not representative or are inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason for concern, and provide any “improved” data that you have, if available. When you submit data, we request that you provide documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the RTR website, complete the following steps:
1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the data fields appropriate for that information.
2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested revision (
3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions (
4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in Microsoft® Access format and all accompanying documentation to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678 (through the method described in the
5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility (or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be submitted in the form of updated Microsoft® Excel files that are generated by the Microsoft® Access file. These files are provided on the RTR website at
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the OMB for review.
This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2034.07. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678), and it is briefly summarized here.
We are proposing changes to the paperwork requirements for the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP in the form of eliminating the SSM reporting and SSM plan requirements, and requiring electronic submittal of all compliance reports (including performance test reports), and some notifications.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. We conducted an Economic Impact analysis which is available in the docket for this proposal, EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678. For all the facilities affected by the proposal, including the small businesses, the costs associated with the proposed rule requirements are less than 0.001 percent of annual sales revenues. Our conclusion is that there are no significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities from these proposed amendments. We have, therefore, concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This proposed rule imposes requirements on owners and operators of wood building product surface coating facilities and not tribal governments. The EPA does not know of any wood building product surface coating facilities owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. However, if there are any, the effect of this rule on communities of tribal governments would not be unique or disproportionate to the effect on other communities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in sections III and IV of this preamble and further documented in the risk report titled
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This action involves technical standards. The EPA proposes to use ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010), “Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy” as an alternative to using
ANSI A135.4-2012 is reasonably available from the Composite Panel Association, 19465 Deerfield Avenue, Suite 306, Leesburg, VA 20176. The standard specifies requirements and test methods for water absorption, thickness swelling, modulus of rupture, tensile strength, surface finish, dimensions, squareness, edge straightness, and moisture content for five classes of hardboard, including tileboard, part of a subcategory in the standard.
The EPA also proposes to use ASTM D4840-99, “Standard Guide for Sampling Chain-of-Custody Procedures,” in Method 326 for its chain of custody procedures and incorporate this alternative method by reference. The ASTM D4840-99 guide contains a comprehensive discussion of potential requirements for a sample chain-of-custody program and describes the procedures involved in sample chain-of-custody. The purpose of ASTM D4840-99 procedures is to provide accountability for and documentation of sample integrity from the time samples are collected until the time samples are disposed. Method 326 is proposed to be added for the measurement of organic HAP emissions if isocyanate is a major organic HAP component of the surface coating exhaust stream.
The EPA proposes to use the following five VCS as alternatives to Method 24 for the determination of volatile matter content, water content, density, volume solids, and weight solids of surface coatings and incorporate these VCS by reference:
• ASTM D1963-85 (1996), “Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related Materials at 25/25°C.” This test method is used for the determination of the specific gravity of drying oils, varnishes, alkyd resins, fatty acids, and related materials.
• ASTM D2111-95 (2000), “Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures.” These test methods are used for the determination of the specific gravity of halogenated organic solvents and solvent admixtures.
• ASTM D2369-01, “Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings.” This test method describes a procedure used for the determination of the weight percent volatile content of solvent-borne and waterborne coatings.
• ASTM D2697-86 (Reapproved 1998), “Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings.” This test method is applicable to the determination of the volume of nonvolatile matter in coatings.
• ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003), “Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer.” This test method is used for the determination of the percent volume nonvolatile matter in clear and pigmented coatings.
The ASTM standards are reasonably available from the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. See
While the EPA has identified another 18 VCS as being potentially applicable to this proposed rule, we have decided not to use these VCS in this rulemaking. The use of these VCS would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation date, and other import technical and policy considerations. See the memorandum titled
Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures in the final rule or any amendments.
The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.B of this preamble and the technical report titled
We examined the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated with the source category, by performing a demographic analysis of the population close to the facilities. In this analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP source category across different social, demographic, and economic groups within the populations living near facilities identified as having the highest risks. The methodology and the results of the demographic analyses are included in a technical report,
The results of the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP source category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 800 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The specific demographic results indicate that the percentage of the population potentially impacted by emissions is greater than its corresponding national percentage for the minority population (84 percent for the source category compared to 38 percent nationwide), the African American population (75 percent for the source category compared to 12 percent nationwide) and for the population over age 25 without a high school diploma (25 percent for the source category compared to 14 percent nationwide). The proximity results (irrespective of risk) indicate that the population percentages for certain demographic categories within 5 km of source category emissions are greater than the
The risks due to HAP emissions from this source category are low for all populations (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Surface Coating of Wood Building Products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c) American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 W. 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, Telephone (212) 642-4980, and
(1) ANSI A135.4-2012, Basic Hardboard, approved June 8, 2012, IBR approved for § 63.4781.
(2) [Reserved]
(g) * * *
(11) ASTM D1475-90, Standard Test Method for Density of Paint, Varnish Lacquer, and Related Products, IBR approved for appendix A to subpart II and §§ 63.4741(b) and (c) and 63.4751(c).
(18) ASTM D1963-85 (1996), Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related Materials at 25/25 °C, approved 1996, IBR approved for §§ 63.4741(a) and 63.4761(j).
(21) ASTM D2111-95 (2000), Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures, approved 2000, IBR approved for §§ 63.4741(a) and 63.4761(j).
(26) ASTM D2369-01, Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings, approved 2001, IBR approved for §§ 63.4741(a) and 63.4761(j).
(29) ASTM D2697-86 (Reapproved 1998), Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR approved for §§ 63.3161(f), 63.3521(b), 63.3941(b), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(a) and (b), 63.4761(j), 63.4941(b), and 63.5160(c).
(63) ASTM D4840-99, Standard Guide for Sampling Chain-of-Custody Procedures, approved 1999, IBR approved for Method 326 in appendix A to part 63.
(77) ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003), Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer, IBR approved for §§ 63.3161, 63.3521, 63.3941, 63.4141, 63.4741(a) and (b), 63.4761(j), 63.4941(b), and 63.5160(c).
(82) ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, including Annexes A1 through A8, Approved October 1, 2010, IBR approved for §§ 63.1571(a), 63.4651(i), 63.4766(b), Tables 4 and 5 to subpart JJJJJ, tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK, tables 1, 2, and 5 to subpart UUUUU and appendix B to subpart UUUUU.
(a) For a new or reconstructed affected source, the compliance date is the applicable date in paragraph (a)(1), (2) or (3) of this section:
(1) If the initial startup of your new or reconstructed affected source is before May 28, 2003, the compliance date is May 28, 2003; except that the compliance date for the revised requirements promulgated at §§ 63.4683, 63.4700, 63.4710, 63.4720, 63.4730, 63.4741, 63.4751, 63.4761, 63.4763, 63.4764, 63.4766, 63.4781, Table 4 of this subpart QQQQ, and Appendix A of this subpart QQQQ published on [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
(2) If the initial startup of your new or reconstructed affected source occurs after May 28, 2003, the compliance date is the date of initial startup of your affected source; except that if the initial startup of your new or reconstructed affected source occurs after May 28, 2003, but on or before May 16, 2018, the compliance date for the revised requirements promulgated at §§ 63.4683, 63.4700, 63.4710, 63.4720, 63.4730, 63.4741, 63.4751, 63.4761, 63.4763, 63.4764, 63.4766, 63.4781,
(3) If the initial startup of your new or reconstructed affected source occurs after May 16, 2018, the compliance date is [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
(b) For an existing affected source, the compliance date is the date 3 years after May 28, 2003, except that the compliance date for the revised requirements promulgated at §§ 63.4683, 63.4700, 63.4710, 63.4720, 63.4730, 63.4741, 63.4751, 63.4761, 63.4763, 63.4764, 63.4766, 63.4781, Table 4 of this subpart QQQQ, and Appendix A of this subpart QQQQ published on [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) Any coating operation(s) at existing sources for which you use the emission rate with add-on controls option, as specified in § 63.4691(c), must be in compliance with the applicable emission limitations as specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
(ii) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
(3) For new or reconstructed sources with initial startup after May 16, 2018, any coating operation(s) for which you use the emission rate with add-on controls option, as specified in § 63.4691(c), must be in compliance with the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards as specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) The coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the applicable emission limit in § 63.4690 at all times.
(ii) The coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the operating limits for emission capture systems and add-on control devices required by § 63.4692 at all times, except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances according to § 63.4761(j).
(iii) The coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the work practice standards in § 63.4693 at all times.
(b) For existing sources as of May 16, 2018, prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
(d) For existing sources until [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
(c) * * *
(8) * * *
(ii) For the emission rate without add-on controls option, provide the calculation of the total mass of organic HAP emissions for each month; the calculation of the total volume of coating solids used each month; and the calculation of the 12-month organic HAP emission rate, using Equations 1 and 1A (or 1A-alt) through 1C, 2, and 3, respectively, of § 63.4751.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) The calculations used to determine the 12-month organic HAP emission rate for the compliance period in which the deviation occurred. You must provide the calculations for Equations 1, 1A (or 1A-alt) through 1C, 2, and 3 in § 63.4751; and if applicable, the calculation used to determine mass of organic HAP in waste materials according to § 63.4751(e)(4). You do not need to submit background data supporting these calculations (
(7)
(i) For existing sources until [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
(ii) After [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
(A) The beginning and ending dates of each compliance period during which the 12-month organic HAP emission rate exceeded the applicable emission limit in § 63.4690.
(B) The calculations used to determine the 12-month organic HAP emission rate for each compliance period in which a deviation occurred. You must provide the calculation of the total mass of organic HAP emissions for the coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used each month, using Equations 1 and 1A through 1C of § 63.4751; and, if applicable, the calculation used to determine mass of organic HAP in waste materials according to § 63.4751(e)(4); the calculation of the total volume of coating solids used each month, using Equation 2 of § 63.4751; the calculation of the mass of organic HAP emission reduction each month by emission capture systems and add-on control devices, using Equations 1 and 1A through 1D of § 63.4761, and Equations 2, 3, and 3A through 3C of § 63.4761, as applicable; the calculation of the total mass of organic HAP emissions each month, using Equation 4 of § 63.4761; and the calculation of the 12-month organic HAP emission rate, using Equation 5 of § 63.4761. You do not need to submit the background data supporting these calculations (
(C) A brief description of the CPMS.
(D) The date of the latest CPMS certification or audit.
(E) The date and time that each CPMS was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(F) The date, time, and duration that each CPMS was out-of-control, including the information in § 63.8(c)(8).
(G) The date and time period of each deviation from an operating limit in Table 3 to this subpart, date and time period of any bypass of the add-on control device.
(H) A summary of the total duration of each deviation from an operating limit in Table 3 to this subpart, each bypass of the add-on control device during the semiannual reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total source operating time during that semiannual reporting period.
(I) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations from the operating limits in Table 3 to this subpart and bypasses of the add-on control device during the semiannual reporting period by identifying deviations due to control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes; a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
(J) A summary of the total duration of CPMS downtime during the semiannual reporting period and the total duration of CPMS downtime as a percent of the total source operating time during that semiannual reporting period.
(K) A description of any changes in the CPMS, coating operation, emission capture system, or add-on control device since the last semiannual reporting period.
(L) For each deviation from the work practice standards, a description of the deviation, the date and time period of the deviation, and the actions you took to correct the deviation.
(M) A statement of the cause of each deviation.
(c)
(d)
(i) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website (
(ii) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test, the owner or operator must submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 63.13 unless the Administrator agrees to or specifies an alternative reporting method.
(2) You must submit notifications and semiannual compliance reports to the EPA via the CEDRI. (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (
(3) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, and due to a planned or actual outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due, you will be or are precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX and submitting a required report within the time prescribed, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a written description identifying the date, time and length of the outage; a rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the EPA system outage; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In any circumstance, the report must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator.
(4) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(3) For the emission rate without add-on controls option, a record of the calculation of the total mass of organic HAP emissions for the coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used each month, using Equations 1, 1A (or 1A-alt) through 1C, and 2 of § 63.4751; and, if applicable, the calculation used to determine mass of organic HAP in waste materials according to § 63.4751(e)(4); the calculation of the total volume of coating solids used each month, using Equation 2 of § 63.4751; and the calculation of each 12-month organic HAP emission rate, using Equation 3 of § 63.4751.
(k) If you use the emission rate with add-on controls option, you must keep the records specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (2) of this section.
(1) For existing sources until [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
(v) For each capture system that is not a PTE, the data and documentation you used to determine capture efficiency according to the requirements specified in §§ 63.4764 and 63.4765(b) through (e), including the records specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(v)(A) through (C) of this section that apply to you.
(vi) The records specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(vi)(A) and (B) of this section for each add-on control device organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency determination as specified in § 63.4766.
(2) After [DATE of PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
(i) The records required to show continuous compliance with each operating limit specified in Table 3 to this subpart that applies to you.
(ii) For each capture system that is a PTE, the data and documentation you used to support a determination that the capture system meets the criteria in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for a PTE and has a capture efficiency of 100 percent, as specified in § 63.4765(a).
(iii) For each capture system that is not a PTE, the data and documentation you used to determine capture efficiency according to the requirements specified in §§ 63.4764 and 63.4765(b) through (e), including the records specified in paragraphs (k)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section that apply to you.
(A)
(B)
(C)
(iv) The records specified in paragraphs (k)(2)(iv)(A) and (B) of this section for each add-on control device organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency determination as specified in § 63.4766.
(A) Records of each add-on control device performance test conducted according to §§ 63.4764 and 63.4766.
(B) Records of the coating operation conditions during the add-on control device performance test showing that the performance test was conducted under representative operating conditions.
(v) Records of the data and calculations you used to establish the emission capture and add-on control device operating limits as specified in § 63.4767 and to document compliance with the operating limits as specified in Table 3 to this subpart.
(vi) A record of the work practice plan required by § 63.4693, and documentation that you are implementing the plan on a continuous basis.
(a) * * *
(2)
(i) ASTM Method D1963-85 (1996), “Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related Materials at 25/25°C,” (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14);
(ii) ASTM Method D2111-95 (2000), “Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures,” (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14);
(iii) ASTM Method D2369-01, “Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings,” (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14);
(iv) ASTM Method D2697-86 (1998), “Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings,” (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14); and
(v) ASTM Method D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003), “Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer,” (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14).
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
m
D
(c)
(c)
(e) * * *
(i)
(1) You must also calculate the mass of organic HAP emitted from the coatings used during the month using Equation 1A-alt of this section:
(2) Calculate the organic HAP emission rate for the 12-month compliance period, grams organic HAP per liter coating solids used, using Equation 3 of this section.
(3) The organic HAP emission rate for the initial 12-month compliance period, calculated using Equation 3 of this section, must be less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.4690. You must keep all records as required by §§ 63.4730 and 63.4731. As part of the Notification of Compliance Status required by § 63.4710, you must identify the coating operation(s) for which you used the emission rate without add-on controls option and submit a statement that the coating operation(s) was (were) in compliance with the emission limitations during the initial compliance period because the organic HAP emission rate was less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.4690, determined according to this section.
(4) If ASTM D6348-03 is used, the conditions specified in paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (ii) must be met.
(i) Test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D6348-03, sections A1 through A8 are mandatory.
(ii) In ASTM D6348-03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5 of ASTM D6348-03). In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must be between 70 and 130 percent. If the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data are not acceptable for that compound, and the test must be repeated for that analyte following adjustment of the sampling and/or analytical procedure before the retest. The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test report, and all field measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound using the following equation: Reported Result = (Measured Concentration in the Stack × 100)/%R.
(j) * * *
(3) Determine the mass fraction of volatile organic matter for each coating, thinner, and cleaning material used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, grams volatile organic matter per gram coating. You may determine the volatile organic matter mass fraction using Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, one of the voluntary consensus standards specified in § 63.4741(a)(2)(i) through (v) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), or an EPA approved alternative method, or you may use information provided by the manufacturer or supplier of the coating. In the event of any inconsistency between information provided by the manufacturer or supplier and the results of Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, or an approved alternative method, the test method results will take precedence unless after consultation, a regulated source could demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement agency that the formulation data were correct.
(h) For existing sources until [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
(a) * * *
(1)
(2)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) Use Method 1 or 1A of appendix A-1 to 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate, to select sampling sites and velocity traverse points.
(2) Use Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of appendix A-1 to 40 CFR part 60, or Method 2G of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate, to measure gas volumetric flow rate.
(3) Use Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate, for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. You may also use as an alternative to Method 3B, the manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of exhaust gas in ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus]” (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14).
(4) Use Method 4 of appendix A-3 to 40 CFR part 60 to determine stack gas moisture.
(b) Measure total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon at the inlet and outlet of the add-on control device simultaneously, using Method 25 or 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60, and Method 320 or 326 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section. The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6348-03 (incorporated by reference in § 63.14) may be used as an alternative to using Method 320 if the conditions specified in § 63.4751(i)(4)(A) and (B) are met. You must use the same method for both the inlet and outlet measurements.
(1) Use Method 25 of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-on control device is an oxidizer, and you expect the total gaseous organic concentration as carbon to be more than 50 parts per million (ppm) at the control device outlet.
(2) Use Method 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-on control device is an oxidizer, and you expect the total gaseous organic concentration as carbon to be 50 ppm or less at the control device outlet.
(3) Use Method 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-on control device is not an oxidizer.
(4) If Method 25A is used, and if formaldehyde is a major organic HAP component of the surface coating exhaust stream, use Method 320 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 or ASTM D6348-03 (incorporated by reference in § 63.14) to determine formaldehyde concentration.
(5) In addition to Method 25 or 25A, use Method 326 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 if isocyanate is a major organic HAP component of the surface coating exhaust stream.
(d) For each test run, determine the total gaseous organic emissions mass flow rates for the inlet and the outlet of the add-on control device, using Equation 1 of this section. If there is more than one inlet or outlet to the add-on control device, you must calculate the total gaseous organic mass flow rate using Equation 1 of this section for each inlet and each outlet and then total all of the inlet emissions and total all of the outlet emissions. The mass emission rates for formaldehyde and individual isocyanate must be determined separately.
(f) Determine the emission destruction or removal efficiency of the add-on control device as the average of the efficiencies determined in the three test runs and calculated in Equation 2 of this section. Destruction and removal efficiency must be determined independently for formaldehyde and isocyanates.
(3) For existing sources until [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table:
This method is applicable to the collection and analysis of isocyanate compounds from the emissions associated with manufacturing processes. This method is not inclusive with respect to specifications (
1.1 Analytes. This method is designed to determine the mass emission of isocyanates being emitted from manufacturing processes. The following is a table (Table 1-1) of the isocyanates and the manufacturing process at which the method has been evaluated:
1.2 Applicability. Method 326 is a method designed for determining compliance with National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). Method 326 may also be specified by New Source Performance
1.3 Data Quality Objectives (DQO). The principal objective is to ensure the accuracy of the data at the actual emissions levels and in the actual emissions matrix encountered. To meet this objective, method performance tests are required and NIST-traceable calibration standards must be used.
2.1 Gaseous and/or aerosol isocyanates are withdrawn from an emission source at an isokinetic sampling rate and are collected in a multicomponent sampling train. The primary components of the train include a heated probe, three impingers containing derivatizing reagent in toluene, an empty impinger, an impinger containing charcoal, and an impinger containing silica gel.
2.2 The liquid impinger contents are recovered, concentrated to dryness under vacuum, brought to volume with acetonitrile (ACN) and analyzed with a high pressure liquid chromatograph (HPLC).
4.1 The greatest potential for interference comes from an impurity in the derivatizing reagent, 1-(2-pyridyl)piperazine (1,2-PP). This compound may interfere with the resolution of MI from the peak attributed to unreacted 1,2-PP.
4.2 Other interferences that could result in positive or negative bias are (1) alcohols that could compete with the 1,2-PP for reaction with an isocyanate and (2) other compounds that may co-elute with one or more of the derivatized isocyanates.
4.3 Method interferences may be caused by contaminants in solvents, reagents, glassware, and other sample processing hardware. All these materials must be routinely shown to be free from interferences under conditions of the analysis by preparing and analyzing laboratory method (or reagent) blanks.
4.3.1 Glassware must be cleaned thoroughly before using. The glassware should be washed with laboratory detergent in hot water followed by rinsing with tap water and distilled water. The glassware may be dried by baking in a glassware oven at 400 °C for at least one hour. After the glassware has cooled, it should be rinsed three times with methylene chloride and three times with acetonitrile. Volumetric glassware should not be heated to 400 °C. Instead, after washing and rinsing, volumetric glassware may be rinsed with acetonitrile followed by methylene chloride and allowed to dry in air.
4.3.2 The use of high purity reagents and solvents helps to reduce interference problems in sample analysis.
5.1 Organizations performing this method are responsible for maintaining a current awareness file of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations regarding safe handling of the chemicals specified in this method. A reference file of material safety data sheets should also be made available to all personnel involved in performing the method. Additional references to laboratory safety are available.
6.1 Sample Collection. A schematic of the sampling train used in this method is shown in Figure 207-1. This sampling train configuration is adapted from Method 5 procedures, and, as such, most of the required equipment is identical to that used in Method 5 determinations. The only new component required is a condenser.
6.1.1 Probe Nozzle. Borosilicate or quartz glass; constructed and calibrated according to Method 5, sections 6.1.1.1 and 10.1, and coupled to the probe liner using a Teflon union; a stainless steel nut is recommended for this union. When the stack temperature exceeds 210 °C (410 °F), a one-piece glass nozzle/liner assembly must be used.
6.1.2 Probe Liner. Same as Method 5, section 6.1.1.2, except metal liners shall not be used. Water-cooling of the stainless steel sheath is recommended at temperatures exceeding 500 °C (932 °F). Teflon may be used in limited applications where the minimum stack temperature exceeds 120 °C (250 °F) but never exceeds the temperature where Teflon is estimated to become unstable [approximately 210 °C (410 °F)].
6.1.3 Pitot Tube, Differential Pressure Gauge, Filter Heating System, Metering System, Barometer, Gas Density Determination Equipment. Same as Method 5, sections 6.1.1.3, 6.1.1.4, 6.1.1.6, 6.1.1.9, 6.1.2, and 6.1.3.
6.1.4 Impinger Train. Glass impingers are connected in series with leak-free ground-glass joints following immediately after the heated probe. The first impinger shall be of the Greenburg-Smith design with the standard tip. The remaining five impingers shall be of the modified Greenburg-Smith design, modified by replacing the tip with a 1.3-cm (1/2-in.) I.D. glass tube extending about 1.3 cm (1/2 in.) from the bottom of the outer cylinder. A water-jacketed condenser is placed between the outlet of the first impinger and the inlet to the second impinger to reduce the evaporation of toluene from the first impinger.
6.1.5 Moisture Measurement. For the purpose of calculating volumetric flow rate and isokinetic sampling, you must also collect either Method 4 in Appendix A-3 to this part or other moisture measurement methods approved by the Administrator concurrent with each Method 326 test run.
6.2 Sample Recovery
6.2.1 Probe and Nozzle Brushes; Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) bristle brushes with stainless steel wire or PTFE handles are required. The probe brush shall have extensions constructed of stainless steel, PTFE, or inert material at least as long as the probe. The brushes shall be properly sized and shaped to brush out the probe liner and the probe nozzle.
6.2.2 Wash Bottles. Three. PTFE or glass wash bottles are recommended; polyethylene wash bottles must not be used because organic contaminants may be extracted by exposure to organic solvents used for sample recovery.
6.2.3 Glass Sample Storage Containers. Chemically resistant, borosilicate amber glass bottles, 500-mL or 1,000-mL. Bottles should be tinted to prevent the action of light on the sample. Screw-cap liners shall be either PTFE or constructed to be leak-free and resistant to chemical attack by organic recovery solvents. Narrow-mouth glass bottles have been found to leak less frequently.
6.2.4 Graduated Cylinder. To measure impinger contents to the nearest 1 ml or 1 g. Graduated cylinders shall have subdivisions not >2 mL.
6.2.5 Plastic Storage Containers. Screw-cap polypropylene or polyethylene containers to store silica gel and charcoal.
6.2.6 Funnel and Rubber Policeman. To aid in transfer of silica gel or charcoal to container (not necessary if silica gel is weighed in field).
6.2.7 Funnels. Glass, to aid in sample recovery.
6.3 Sample Preparation and Analysis.
The following items are required for sample analysis.
6.3.1 Rotary Evaporator. Buchii Model EL-130 or equivalent.
6.3.2 1000 ml Round Bottom Flask for use with a rotary evaporator.
6.3.3 Separatory Funnel. 500-ml or larger, with PTFE stopcock.
6.3.4 Glass Funnel. Short-stemmed or equivalent.
6.3.5 Vials. 15-ml capacity with PTFE lined caps.
6.3.6 Class A Volumetric Flasks. 10-ml for bringing samples to volume after concentration.
6.3.7 Filter Paper. Qualitative grade or equivalent.
6.3.8 Buchner Funnel. Porcelain with 100 mm ID or equivalent.
6.3.9 Erlenmeyer Flask. 500-ml with side arm and vacuum source.
6.3.10 HPLC with at least a binary pumping system capable of a programmed gradient.
6.3.11 Column Systems Column systems used to measure isocyanates must be capable of achieving separation of the target compounds from the nearest eluting compound or interferents with no more than 10 percent peak overlap.
6.3.12 Detector. UV detector at 254 nm. A fluoresence detector (FD) with an excitation of 240 nm and an emission at 370 nm may be also used to allow the detection of low concentrations of isocyanates in samples.
6.3.13 Data system for measuring peak areas and retention times.
7.1 Sample Collection Reagents.
7.1.1 Charcoal. Activated, 6-16 mesh. Used to absorb toluene vapors and prevent them from entering the metering device. Use once with each train and discard.
7.1.2 Silica Gel and Crushed Ice. Same as Method 5, sections 7.1.2 and 7.1.4 respectively.
7.1.3 Impinger Solution. The impinger solution is prepared by mixing a known amount of 1-(2-pyridyl) piperazine (purity 99.5+ %) in toluene (HPLC grade or equivalent). The actual concentration of 1,2-PP should be approximately four times the amount needed to ensure that the capacity of the derivatizing solution is not exceeded. This amount shall be calculated from the stoichiometric relationship between 1,2-PP and the isocyanate of interest and preliminary information about the concentration of the isocyanate in the stack emissions. A concentration of 130 μg/ml of 1,2-PP in toluene can be used as a reference point. This solution shall be prepared, stored in a refrigerated area away from light, and used within ten days of preparation.
7.2 Sample Recovery Reagents.
7.2.1 Toluene. HPLC grade is required for sample recovery and cleanup (see
7.2.2 Acetonitrile. HPLC grade is required for sample recovery and cleanup.
7.3 Analysis Reagents. Reagent grade chemicals should be used in all tests. All reagents shall conform to the specifications of the Committee on Analytical Reagents of the American Chemical Society, where such specifications are available.
7.3.1 Toluene, C
7.3.2 Acetonitrile, CH
7.3.3 Methylene Chloride, CH
7.3.4 Hexane, C
7.3.5 Water, H
7.3.6 Ammonium Acetate, CH
7.3.7 Acetic Acid (glacial), CH
7.3.8 1-(2-Pyridyl)piperazine, (1,2-PP), ≥99.5% or equivalent.
7.3.9 Absorption Solution. Prepare a solution of 1-(2-pyridyl)piperazine in toluene at a concentration of 40 mg/300 ml. This solution is used for method blanks and method spikes.
7.3.10 Ammonium Acetate Buffer Solution (AAB). Prepare a solution of ammonium acetate in water at a concentration of 0.1 M by transferring 7.705 g of ammonium acetate to a 1,000 ml volumetric flask and diluting to volume with HPLC Grade water. Adjust pH to 6.2 with glacial acetic acid.
Because of the complexity of this method, field personnel should be trained in and experienced with the test procedures in order to obtain reliable results.
8.1 Sampling
8.1.1 Preliminary Field Determinations. Same as Method 5, section 8.2.
8.1.2 Preparation of Sampling Train. Follow the general procedure given in Method 5, section 8.3.1, except for the following variations: Place 300 ml of the impinger absorbing solution in the first impinger and 200 ml each in the second and third impingers. The fourth impinger shall remain empty. The fifth and sixth impingers shall have 400 g of charcoal and 200-300 g of silica gel, respectively. Alternatively, the charcoal and silica gel may be combined in the fifth impinger. Set-up the train as in Figure 326-1. During assembly, do not use any silicone grease on ground-glass joints.
During preparation and assembly of the sampling train, keep all openings where contamination can occur covered with PTFE film or aluminum foil until just before assembly or until sampling is about to begin.
8.1.3 Leak-Check Procedures. Follow the leak-check procedures given in Method 5, sections 8.4.2 (Pretest Leak-Check), 8.4.3 (Leak-Checks During the Sample Run), and 8.4.4 (Post-Test Leak-Check), with the exception that the pre-test leak-check is mandatory.
8.1.4 Sampling Train Operation. Follow the general procedures given in Method 5, section 8.5. Turn on the condenser coil coolant recirculating pump and monitor the gas entry temperature. Ensure proper gas entry temperature before proceeding and again before any sampling is initiated. It is important that the gas entry temperature not exceed 50° C (122 °F), thus reducing the loss of toluene from the first impinger. For each run, record the data required on a data sheet such as the one shown in Method 5, Figure 5-3.
8.2 Sample Recovery. Allow the probe to cool. When the probe can be handled safely, wipe off all external particulate matter near the tip of the probe nozzle and place a cap over the tip to prevent losing or gaining particulate matter. Do not cap the probe tip tightly while the sampling train is cooling down because this will create a vacuum in the train. Before moving the sample train to the cleanup site, remove the probe from the sample train and cap the opening to the probe, being careful not to lose any condensate that might be present. Cap the impingers and transfer the probe and the impinger/condenser assembly to the cleanup area. This area should be clean and protected from the weather to reduce sample contamination or loss. Inspect the train prior to and during disassembly and record any abnormal conditions. It is not necessary to measure the volume of the impingers for the purpose of moisture determination as the method is not validated for moisture determination. Treat samples as follows:
8.2.1 Container No. 1, Probe and Impinger Numbers 1 and 2. Rinse and brush the probe/nozzle first with toluene twice and then twice again with acetonitrile and place the wash into a glass container labeled with the test run identification and “Container No. 1.” When using these solvents ensure that proper ventilation is available. Quantitatively transfer the liquid from the first two impingers and the
8.2.2 Container No. 2, Impingers 3 and 4. Quantitatively transfer the liquid from each impinger into a glass container labeled with the test run identification and “Container No. 2.” Rinse each impinger and all connecting glassware twice with toluene and twice again with acetonitrile and transfer the rinses into Container No. 2. After all components have been collected in the container, seal the container, and mark the liquid level on the bottle.
The contents of the fifth and sixth impinger (silica gel) can be discarded.
8.2.3 Container No. 3, Reagent Blank. Save a portion of both washing solutions (toluene/acetonitrile) used for the cleanup as a blank. Transfer 200 ml of each solution directly from the wash bottle being used and combine in a glass sample container with the test identification and “Container No. 3.” Seal the container, and mark the liquid level on the bottle and add the proper label.
8.2.4 Field Train Proof Blanks. To demonstrate the cleanliness of sampling train glassware, you must prepare a full sampling train to serve as a field train proof blank just as it would be prepared for sampling. At a minimum, one complete sampling train will be assembled in the field staging area, taken to the sampling area, and leak-checked. The probe of the blank train shall be heated during and the train will be recovered as if it were an actual test sample. No gaseous sample will be passed through the sampling train. Field blanks are recovered in the same manner as described in sections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 and must be submitted with the field samples collected at each sampling site.
8.2.5 Field Train Spike. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the sampling train, field handling, and recovery procedures you must prepare a full sampling train to serve as a field train spike just as it would be prepared for sampling. The field spike is performed in the same manner as the field train proof blank with the additional step of adding the Field Spike Standard to the first impinger after the initial leak check. The train will be recovered as if it were an actual test sample. No gaseous sample will be passed through the sampling train. Field train spikes are recovered in the same manner as described in sections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 and must be submitted with the samples collected for each test program.
8.3 Sample Transport Procedures. Containers must remain in an upright position at all times during shipment. Samples must also be stored at <4°C between the time of sampling and concentration. Each sample should be extracted and concentrated within 30 days after collection and analyzed within 30 days after extraction. The extracted sample must be stored at 4°C.
8.4 Sample Custody. Proper procedures and documentation for sample chain of custody are critical to ensuring data integrity. The chain of custody procedures in ASTM D4840-99 “Standard Guide for Sampling Chain-of-Custody Procedures” (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) shall be followed for all samples (including field samples and blanks).
9.1 Sampling. Sampling Operations. The sampling quality control procedures and acceptance criteria are listed in Table 326-2 below; see also section 9.0 of Method 5.
9.2 Analysis. The analytical quality control procedures required for this method includes the analysis of the field train proof blank, field train spike, and reagent and method blanks. Analytical quality control procedures and acceptance criteria are listed in Table 326-3 below.
9.2.1 Check for Breakthrough. Recover and determine the isocyanate(s) concentration of the last two impingers separately from the first two impingers.
9.2.2 Field Train Proof Blank. Field blanks must be submitted with the samples collected at each sampling site.
9.2.3 Reagent Blank and Field Train Spike. At least one reagent blank and a field train spike must be submitted with the samples collected for each test program.
9.2.4 Determination of Method Detection Limit. Based on your instrument's sensitivity and linearity, determine the calibration concentrations or masses that make up a representative low level calibration range. The MDL must be determined at least annually for the analytical system using an MDL study such as that found in section 15.0 to Method 301 of appendix A to part 63 of this chapter.
Maintain a laboratory log of all calibrations.
10.1 Probe Nozzle, Pitot Tube Assembly, Dry Gas Metering System, Probe Heater, Temperature Sensors, Leak-Check of Metering System, and Barometer. Same as Method 5, sections 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 8.4.1, and 10.6, respectively.
10.2 High Performance Liquid Chromatograph. Establish the retention times for the isocyanates of interest; retention times will depend on the chromatographic conditions. The retention times provided in Table 10-1 are provided as a guide to relative retention times when using a C18, 250 mm × 4.6 mm ID, 5µm particle size column, a 2 ml/min flow rate of a 1:9 to 6:4 Acetonitrile/Ammonium Acetate Buffer, a 50 µl sample loop, and a UV detector set at 254 nm.
10.3 Preparation of Isocyanate Derivatives.
10.3.1 HDI, TDI, MDI. Dissolve 500 mg of each isocyanate in individual 100 ml aliquots of methylene chloride (MeCl
10.3.2 MI. Prepare a 200 µg/ml stock solution of methyl isocyanate-urea, transfer 60 mg of 1,2-PP to a 100-ml volumetric flask containing 50 ml of MeCl
10.4 Preparation of calibration standards. Prepare a 100 µg/ml stock solution of the isocyanates of interest from the individual isocyanate-urea derivative as prepared in sections 10.3.1 and 10.3.2. This is accomplished by dissolving 1 mg of each isocyanate-urea derivative in 10 ml of Acetonitrile. Calibration standards are prepared from this stock solution by making appropriate dilutions of aliquots of the stock into Acetonitrile.
10.5 Preparation of Method Blanks. Prepare a method blank for each test
10.6 Preparation of Field Spike Solution. Prepare a field spike solution for every test program in the same manner as calibration standards (see Section 10.4). The mass of the target isocyanate in the volume of the spike solution for the field spike train shall be equivalent to that estimated to be captured from the source concentration for each compound; alternatively, you may also prepare a solution that represents half the applicable standard.
10.7 HPLC Calibrations. See Section 11.1.
11.1 Analytical Calibration. Perform a multipoint calibration of the instrument at six or more upscale points over the desired quantitative range (multiple calibration ranges shall be calibrated, if necessary). The field samples analyzed must fall within at least one of the calibrated quantitative ranges and meet the performance criteria specified below. The lowest point in your calibration curve must be at least 5, and preferably 10, times the MDL. For each calibration curve, the value of the square of the linear correlation coefficient,
11.2 Concentration of Samples. Transfer each sample to a 1,000-ml round bottom flask. Attach the flask to a rotary evaporator and gently evaporate to dryness under vacuum in a 65 °C water bath. Rinse the round bottom flask three times each with 2 ml of acetonitrile and transfer the rinse to a 10-ml volumetric flask. Dilute the sample to volume with acetonitrile and transfer to a 15-ml vial and seal with a PTFE lined lid. Store the vial ≤4 °C until analysis.
11.3 Analysis. Analyze replicative samples by HPLC, using the appropriate conditions established in section 10.2. The width of the retention time window used to make identifications should be based upon measurements of actual retention time variations of standards over the course of a day. Three times the standard deviation of a retention time for a compound can be used to calculate a suggested window size; however, the experience of the analyst should weigh heavily in the interpretation of the chromatograms. If the peak area exceeds the linear range of the calibration curve, the sample must be diluted with acetonitrile and reanalyzed. Average the replicate results for each run. For each sample you must report the same information required for analytical calibrations (Section 11.1). For non-detect or values below the detection limit of the method, you shall report the value as “<” numerical detection limit.
Nomenclature and calculations, same as in Method 5, section 6, with the following additions below.
12.1 Nomenclature.
12.2 Conversion from Isocyanate to the Isocyanate-urea derivative. The equation for converting the amount of free isocyanate to the corresponding amount of isocyanate-urea derivative is as follows:
The equation for converting the amount of IU derivative to the corresponding amount of FI
12.3 Calculate the correlation coefficient, slope, and intercepts for the calibration data using the least squares method for linear regression. Concentrations are expressed as the x-variable and response is expressed as the y-variable.
12.4 Calculate the concentration of isocyanate in the sample:
12.5 Calculate the total amount collected in the sample by multiplying the concentration (µg/ml) times the final volume of acetonitrile (10 ml).
12.6 Calculate the concentration of isocyanate (µg/dscm) in the stack gas.
12.7 Calculate Relative Percent Difference (RPD) for each replicative sample
12.8 Calculate Field Train Spike Recovery
12.9 Calculate Percent Breakthrough
K = 35.314 ft
Evaluation of sampling and analytical procedures for a selected series of compounds must meet the quality control criteria (See Section 9) for each associated analytical determination. The sampling and analytical procedures
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend C2's rulebook in preparation for the technology migration of C2 onto the options platform of an Exchange's affiliated options exchange, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX” or “EDGX Options”).
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.
In 2016, the Exchange's parent company, Cboe Global Markets, Inc. (formerly named CBOE Holdings, Inc.) (“Cboe Global”), which is also the parent company of Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe Options”), acquired EDGX and its affiliated exchanges, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA” or “EDGA Options”), Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”), and Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (“BYX” and, together with C2, Cboe Options, EDGX, EDGA, and BZX, the “Cboe Affiliated Exchanges”). C2 intends to migrate its technology onto the same trading platform as EDGX. In this context, C2 proposes to align certain system functionality with EDGX (and BZX in certain circumstances), while retaining certain C2 functionality, as well as to make other nonsubstantive changes to the rules, retaining only intended differences between it and the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges. Although the Exchange intentionally offers certain features that differ from those offered by the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges and will continue to do so, the Exchange believes offering similar functionality to the extent practicable will reduce potential confusion for market participants. The proposed rule change modifies or adds certain system functionality currently offered by EDGX to provide a consistent technology offering for users of Cboe Affiliated Exchanges.
The proposed rule change makes the following changes to Chapter 1 of the C2 Rulebook.
The following table identifies the defined terms that are proposed to be added to or amended in C2 Rule 1.1, whether the proposed amended rule was moved from a current C2 rule or corresponds to the rule of EDGX or another exchange, and proposed substantive changes.
The proposed rule change makes changes throughout C2 Rules to conform to the changes to defined terms.
As noted above, the proposed rule change amends the definition of class to mean all option contracts with the same unit of trading (including adjusted series as determined by OCC) covering the same underlying security or index. The current definition states a class consists of options of the same type, which is defined as either a put or a call. However, the term class is generally understood to include both puts and calls, which are types of series, not separate classes, making this definition outdated. As described above, options with the same exercise price and expiration date that are puts constitute one series, and options with the same exercise price and expiration date that are calls constitute another series. Additionally, there are some exceptions for options that cover the same underlying but constitute a separate class, and the proposed definition incorporates this concept.
As noted above, the proposed rule change adds the following order instructions to C2 Rule 1.1, which order instructions are available on EDGX or BZX, as indicated.
•
•
○ MTP Cancel Newest (“MCN”): An incoming order marked with the “MCN” modifier does not execute against a resting order marked with any MTP modifier originating from the same Unique Identifier. The System cancels or rejects the incoming order, and the resting order remains in the Book.
○ MTP Cancel Oldest (“MCO”): An incoming order marked with the “MCO” modifier does not execute against a resting order marked with any MTP modifier originating from the same Unique Identifier. The System cancels or rejects the resting order, and processes the incoming order in accordance with Rule 6.12.
○ MTP Decrement and Cancel (“MDC”): An incoming order marked with the “MDC” modifier does not execute against a resting order marked with any MTP modifier originating from the same Unique Identifier. If both orders are equivalent in size, the System cancels or rejects both orders. If the orders are not equivalent in size, the System cancels or rejects the smaller of the two orders and decrements the size of the larger order by the size of the smaller order, which remaining balance remains on or processes in accordance with Rule 6.12, as applicable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, unless a User instructs the Exchange not to do so, the System cancels or rejects both orders if the resting order is marked with any MTP modifier other than MDC and the incoming order is smaller in size than the resting order.
○ MTP Cancel Both (“MCB”): An incoming order marked with the “MCB” modifier does not execute against a resting order marked with any MTP modifier originating from the same Unique Identifier. The System cancels or rejects both orders.
○ MTP Cancel Smallest (“MCS”): An incoming order marked with the “MCS” modifier does not execute against a resting order marked with any MTP modifier originating from the same Unique Identifier. If both orders are equivalent in size, the System cancels or rejects both orders. If the orders are not equivalent in size, the System cancels or rejects the smaller of the two orders, and the larger order remains on the Book or processes in accordance with Rule 6.12, as applicable.
The proposed MTP functionality is designed to prevent market participants from unintentionally causing a proprietary self-trade. The Exchange believes these modifiers will allow firms to better manage order flow and prevent undesirable executions with themselves. Trading Permit Holders may have multiple connections into the Exchange consistent with their business needs and function. As a result, orders routed by the same firm via different connections may, in certain circumstances, trade against each other. The proposed modifiers provide Trading Permit Holders with functionality (in addition to what is available on C2 today) with the opportunity to prevent these potentially undesirable trades. The Exchange notes that offering the MTP modifiers may streamline certain regulatory functions by reducing false positive results that may occur on Exchange generated wash trading surveillance reports when orders are executed under the same Unique Identifier. For these reasons, the Exchange believes the MTP modifiers offer users enhanced order processing functionality that may prevent potentially undesirable executions without negatively impacting broker-dealer best execution obligations.
•
•
•
○
○
Current C2 Rule 6.10(c)(8) describes current reserve order functionality available on C2. The proposed functionality is generally the same as the current C2 functionality but enhances the use of reserve orders by providing flexibility for Users to determine whether the reserve replenishment amount is fixed or random. This proposed functionality is substantively the same as that available on BZX.
The Exchange will provide access to the C2 System to Users through various ports, as is the case on EDGX. There are three different types of ports: Physical ports, logical ports, and bulk order ports. The Exchange notes a bulk order port is a type of logical port, and there are other types of logical ports not specifically identified in the proposed rule. The Exchange believes a separate definition is warranted for bulk order ports given the specific functionality provided through such ports but that other types of logical ports are sufficiently described in the proposed definition of logical port.
The proposed rule change defines the term “port” to the Rule 1.1, including the following type of ports:
• A “physical port” provides a physical connection to the System. A physical port may provide access to multiple logical ports.
• A “logical port” or “logical session” provides the ability within the System to accomplish a specific function through a connection, such as order entry, data receipt, or access to information (for example, as discussed below, certain risk control settings may be input by port).
• A “bulk order port” is a dedicated logical port that provides Users with the ability to submit single and bulk order messages to enter, modify, or cancel orders designated as Post Only Orders with a Time-in-Force of Day or GTD with an expiration time on that trading day. As noted below, quoting functionality will not be available to Market-Makers after the technology migration. This bulk order functionality will provide Market-Makers with a way to submit orders that simulate current quoting functionality. Bulk order messages will not route to other exchanges with use of the Post Only instruction, which is consistent with current quoting functionality that does not route Market-Maker quotes. Additionally, Market-Makers generally enter new quotes at the beginning of each trading day based on then-current market conditions, and the Day or GTD (with an expiration time on that trading day) Time-in-Force instruction is consistent with this practice. Because these messages will be used to add liquidity to the Book, the Exchange will make this type of port available to all Users to encourage all Users to provide liquidity to the C2 market. This functionality is substantively the same as port functionality available on EDGX.
Port is the term the Exchange will use to describe the connection a User will use to connect to the System following the technology migration. Currently, the Exchange refers to System connections as logins, but the functionality is generally the same.
The proposed rule change restricts the type of messages that may be submitted through bulk order ports to orders designated as Post Only Orders with a Time-in-Force of Day or GTD with an expiration time on that trading day. Based on definitions described in this rule filing, Post Only Orders with a Time-in-Force of Day or GTD will be posted to and displayed by the Exchange, rather than remove liquidity or route to another options exchange. As a general matter, and as further described below, the proposed change is intended to limit the use of bulk order ports to liquidity provision, particularly by, but not limited to, Market-Makers. In turn, the Exchange believes it is unnecessary to allow orders entered via bulk order entry ports to be able to last beyond the trading day on which they were entered. The Exchange notes that while, as a general matter, bulk order entry provides an efficient way for a market participant to conduct business on the Exchange by allowing the bundling of multiple instructions in a single message, the main purpose of such functionality has always been to encourage quoting on exchanges.
The Exchange proposes to provide this functionality, which is more similar to quoting functionality currently available on C2. In particular, EDGX has never differentiated between a quote or an order on entry. Rather, Users on EDGX submit orders to the Exchange regardless of the Capacity (
As noted above, the proposed rule change adds the Time-in-Force option Good-til-Date, which is similar to Good-til-Date functionality available on EDGX.
The proposed rule change also deletes the following defined terms. While these terms are used in rules C2 incorporates by reference to Cboe Options rules, these terms are not currently used in the text of the C2 rulebook:
The proposed rule change deletes the terms Participant and Permit Holder, which both mean a Trading Permit Holder, another defined term. To simplify the C2 rulebook, the Exchange proposes to have one term refer to a Trading Permit Holder and makes conforming changes throughout the Rules.
The proposed rule change adds Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 1.1, which states to the extent a term is used in any Rules incorporated by reference to Cboe Options rules and not otherwise defined in the Rules, the term will have the meaning set forth in the Cboe Options rules. To the extent a market participant is reviewing an incorporated by reference rule, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to direct market participants to the Cboe Options rulebook for the definitions of terms used in that rule, because that rule essentially incorporates the definition of any defined terms used in that rule. The Exchange believes it is simpler and less confusing to refer market participants to the Cboe Options rulebook for definitions than to refer them back to the C2 rulebook.
The proposed rule change moves Interpretation and Policy .01 to the defined term Professional to Interpretation and Policy .02 at the end of Rule 1.1, as the Exchange believes it is less confusing to have all Interpretations and Policies to a rule located in the same place. The proposed rule change adds a cross-reference to this Interpretation and Policy to the definition of Professional.
The proposed rule change deletes the term Voluntary Professional, as that Capacity designation will no longer be available on C2. It is currently unavailable on EDGX.
Finally, the proposed rule change makes nonsubstantive changes throughout the definitions in Rule 1.1, including to conform language throughout the rules, to conform language to corresponding EDGX rules, and to use plain English.
Proposed C2 Rule 1.2 states the Exchange announces to Trading Permit Holders all determinations it makes pursuant to the Rules via (a) specifications, Notices, or Regulatory Circulars with appropriate advanced notice, which will be posted on the Exchange's website, or as otherwise provided in the Rules, (b) electronic message, or (c) other communication method as provided in the Rules. Current C2 Rules states the Exchange will generally announce determinations by Regulatory Circular, and the proposed rule expands the different type of documents that may be used to announce determinations, consistent with EDGX. Proposed Rule 1.2 makes clear this information will be available on C2's website in an easily accessible manner, regardless of the manner in which the Exchange announces it. Additionally, certain determinations are made more real-time pursuant to electronic message received by Trading Permit Holders (
Proposed C2 Rule 1.3 states unless otherwise specified, all times in the Rules are Eastern Time, except for times in Rules incorporated by reference to Cboe Options rules, which are times as set forth in the applicable Cboe Options rules. Current C2 Rules are generally in Chicago time, so the proposed rule change makes conforming changes throughout the Rules. This single rule simplifies the Rules by eliminating the need to repeatedly state times are in Eastern Time.
The proposed rule change moves the provision regarding Exchange affiliations with Trading Permit Holders from current Rule 3.2(f) to proposed Rule 3.16. Current Rule 3.2(f) prohibits the Exchange from acquiring or maintaining an ownership interest in a Trading Permit Holder, as well as prohibits Trading Permit Holder affiliations with the Exchange or an affiliate of the Exchange without prior Commission approval. Current exceptions include equity interests in CBSX LLC and affiliations with OneChicago, LLC. EDGX Rule 2.10 contains similar restrictions on Exchange affiliations with EDGX Members, but also contains additional exceptions, including (a) a Member's acquisition of an equity interest in Cboe Global that is permitted by the ownership and voting limitations contained in the Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws of Cboe Global, (b) affiliations solely by reason of a Member (or any officer, director, manager, managing member, partner, or affiliate of such Member) becoming a director of the Exchange or Cboe Global, or (c) affiliations with Cboe Trading or other Cboe-affiliated exchanges. Cboe Global and C2 governing documents (which have been filed with the Commission) describe any applicable restrictions on equity ownership of Cboe Global, as well as criteria for directors of C2 and Cboe Global Markets. Additionally, C2 governing documents are substantially similar to those of EDGX, and C2 and EDGX have the same parent company (C2 Global). As discussed below, C2's affiliation with Cboe Trading has recently been approved by the Commission. Therefore, the proposed rule change adds to Rule 3.16 similar exclusions from the affiliation prohibition contained in EDGX Rule 2.10, as the same affiliate restrictions apply to both exchanges and are consistent with governing documents of C2 and Cboe Global previously filed with the Commission.
The proposed rule change adopts Rule 3.17 to govern the Exchange's use of Cboe Trading as an outbound router. Proposed Rule 3.17 is based on EDGX Rule 2.11. As long as Cboe Trading is affiliated with C2 and is providing outbound routing of orders from C2 to other securities exchanges, facilities of securities exchanges, automated trading systems, electronic communications networks or other brokers or dealers (“Trading Centers” and, such function of Cboe Trading is referred to as the “Outbound Router”), Cboe Trading's outbound routing services would be subject to the following conditions and limitations:
• C2 will regulate the Outbound Router function of Cboe Trading as a facility (subject to Section 6 of the Act),
• FINRA, a self-regulatory organization unaffiliated with the Exchange or any of its affiliates, will carry out oversight and enforcement responsibilities as the designated examining authority designated by the Commission pursuant to Rule 17d-1 of the Act with the responsibility for examining Cboe Trading for compliance with applicable financial responsibility rules.
• A Trading Permit Holder's use of Cboe Trading to route orders to another Trading Center will be optional. Any Trading Permit Holder that does not want to use Cboe Trading may use other routers to route orders to other Trading Centers.
• Cboe Trading will not engage in any business other than (a) its Outbound Router function, (b) its Inbound Router function as described in Rule 3.18, (c) its usage of an error account in compliance with proposed paragraph (a)(7) below, and (d) any other activities it may engage in as approved by the Commission.
• The Exchange will establish and maintain procedures and internal controls reasonably designed to adequately restrict the flow of confidential and proprietary information between the Exchange and its facilities (including Cboe Trading), and any other entity, including any affiliate of Cboe Trading, and, if Cboe Trading or any of its affiliates engages in any other business activities other than providing routing services to the Exchange, between the segment of Cboe Trading or its affiliate that provides the other business activities and the routing services.
• The Exchange or Cboe Trading may cancel orders as either deems to be necessary to maintain fair and orderly markets if a technical or systems issue occurs at the Exchange, Cboe Trading, or a routing destination. The Exchange or Cboe Trading will provide notice of the cancellation to affected Trading Permit Holders as soon as practicable.
• Cboe Trading will maintain an error account for the purpose of addressing positions that are the result of an execution or executions that are not clearly erroneous under Rule 6.29 and result from a technical or systems issue at Cboe Trading, the Exchange, a routing destination, or a non-affiliate third-party Routing Broker that affects one or more orders (“Error Positions”).
○ For purposes of proposed Rule 3.17(a)(7), an Error Position will not include any position that results from an order submitted by a Trading Permit Holder to the Exchange that is executed on the Exchange and automatically processed for clearance and settlement on a locked-in basis.
○ Except as provided in proposed subparagraph (7)(C) (described in the next bullet), Cboe Trading does not accept any positions in its error account of a Trading Permit Holder or permit any Trading Permit Holder to transfer any positions from the Trading Permit Holder's account to Cboe Trading's error account.
○ If a technical or systems issue results in the Exchange not having valid clearing instructions for a Trading Permit Holder to a trade, Cboe Trading may assume the Trading Permit Holder's side of the trade so that the trade can be automatically processed for clearance and settlement on a locked-in basis.
○ In connection with a particular technical or systems issue, Cboe Trading or the Exchange will either assign all resulting Error Positions to the Trading Permit Holders in accordance with proposed subparagraph (D)(i),
○ Cboe Trading and the Exchange will make and keep records to document all determinations to treat positions as Error Positions and all determinations for the assignment of Error Positions to Trading Permit Holders or the liquidation of Error Positions, as well as records associated with the liquidation of Error Positions through the third-party broker-dealer.
• The books, records, premises, officers, agents, directors, and employees of Cboe Trading as a facility of the Exchange are deemed to be the books, records, premises, officers, agents, directors, and employees of the Exchange for purposes of, and subject to oversight pursuant to, the Exchange Act. The books and records of Cboe Trading as a facility of the Exchange are subject at all times to inspection and copying by the Exchange and the Commission. Nothing in the Rules precludes officers, agents, directors, or employees of the Exchange from also serving as officers, agents, directors, and employees of Cboe Trading.
The Exchange will comply with the above-listed conditions prior to offering outbound routing from Cboe Trading. In meeting the conditions, the Exchange will have mechanisms in place to protect the independence of the Exchange's regulatory responsibility with respect to Cboe Trading, as well as demonstrate the Cboe Trading cannot use any information that it may have because of its affiliation with the Exchange to its advantage. Current Rule 3.2(f) and proposed Rule 3.16 provide that without prior Commission approval, no Trading Permit Holder may be or become affiliated with the Exchange. The Commission recently approved the adoption of Rule 3.18 regarding Cboe Trading (a C2 Trading Permit Holder) as the Inbound Router for C2.
The proposed rule change adds a reference to C2 Rule 6.1 regarding the times at which the System accepts orders and quotes, which are set forth in
The proposed rule change reformats C2 Rule 6.4 regarding the minimum increments for bids and offers on simple orders for options traded on the Exchange into a table, which the Exchange believes is easier to read, and moves certain information into Interpretations and Policies .01 and .02. The only substantive change is to provide that Mini-SPX Index (XSP) options, for as long as SPDR options (SPY) participate in the Penny Pilot Program, will have a $0.01 increment for all series rather than $0.01 for all series quoting less than $3 and a $0.05 for all series quoting more than $3. The current minimum increments for bids and offers for SPY options, which is an exchange-traded fund that tracks the performance of 1/10th the value of the S&P 500 Index, is $0.01 regardless of whether option series is quoted above, at, or below $3. Because both XSP options and SPY options prices are based, in some manner, on 1/10th the price of the S&P 500 Index, the Exchange believes that it is important that these products have the same minimum increments for consistency and competitive reasons. This is also consistent with rules of other exchanges.
Current C2 Rule 6.34 describes current provisions regarding System access and connectivity, and the proposed rule change moves relevant provisions to proposed Rule 6.8. As stated in proposed Rule 6.8(a), only authorized Users and associated persons of Users may establish connectivity to and access the Exchange to submit orders and quotes and enter auction response in accordance with the Exchange's System access procedures, technical specifications, and requirements. This is consistent with current Rule 6.34(a), (d), and (e), which provides only authorized market participants (which may only be Trading Permit Holders and associated persons with authorized access, as well as Sponsored Users pursuant to C2 Rule 3.15) may access the Exchange electronically to facilitate quote and order entry as well as auction processing, in accordance with Exchange-prescribed technical specifications (to the extent any agreement is required to be signed, as indicated in current Rule 6.34(d), that would be indicated in such specifications).
Proposed Rule 6.8(b) describes EFIDs. A Trading Permit Holder may obtain one or more EFIDs from the Exchange (in a form and manner determined by the Exchange). The Exchange assigns an EFID to a Trading Permit Holder, which the System uses to identify the Trading Permit Holder and clearing number for the execution of orders and quotes submitted to the System with that EFID. Each EFID corresponds to a single Trading Permit Holder and a single clearing number of a Clearing Trading Permit Holder with the Clearing Corporation. A Trading Permit Holder may obtain multiple EFIDs, which may be for the same or different clearing numbers. A Trading Permit Holder may only identify for any of its EFIDs the clearing number of a Clearing Trading Permit Holder that is a Designated Give Up or Guarantor of the Trading Permit Holder as set forth in Rule 6.30. A Trading Permit Holder is able (in a form and manner determined by the Exchange) to designate which of its EFIDs may be used for each of its ports. If a User submits an order or quote through a port with an EFID not enabled for that port, the System cancels or rejects the order or quote. The proposed rule change regarding EFIDs is similar to the current use of acronyms on the Exchange and consistent with the use of EFIDs on EDGX. The Exchange believes including a description of the use of EFIDs in the Rules adds transparency to the Rules.
Consistent with the definition of port above, the proposed rule change adds Rule 6.8(c), which states a User may connect to the Exchange using a logical port available through an API, such as the industry-standard Financial Information eXchange (“FIX”) protocol or Binary Order Entry (“BOE”) protocol (Cboe Market Interface will no longer be available, as that is an API on C2's current system while BOE is an API available on the new technology platform). Users may use multiple logical ports. Additionally, this functionality is similar to bandwidth packets currently available on C2, as described in current Rule 6.35 (and therefore which the proposed rule change deletes). Bandwidth packets restrict the maximum number of orders and quotes per second in the same way logical ports do, and Users may similarly have multiple logical ports as they may have bandwidth packets to accommodate their order and quote entry needs. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to not limit bulk order ports, as the purpose of those ports is to submit message orders in bulk. As discussed below, the Exchange will be able to otherwise mitigate message traffic as necessary.
Proposed Rule 6.9 describes the entry of orders. Users can enters into the System, or cancel previously entered orders, from 7:30 a.m. until market close, subject to the following requirements and conditions:
(a) Users may transmit to the System multiple orders at a single price level or multiple price levels;
(b) Each order a User submits to the Exchange must contain the minimum information identified in the Exchange's order entry specifications;
(c) The System timestamps an order upon receipt, which determines the time ranking of the order for purposes of processing the order; and
(d) For each System Security, the System transmits to OPRA for display the aggregate size of all orders in the System eligible for display at the best price to buy and sell.
(e) After market close, Users may cancel orders with Time in Force of GTC or GTD that remain on the book until 4:45 p.m.
Pursuant to current Rule 6.11(a), the Exchange begins accepting order and quotes no earlier than 2:00 a.m. Chicago time, so the proposed change amends this time to 7:30 a.m. Eastern time to be consistent with EDGX.
Proposed C2 Rule 6.10 states the Exchange may determine to make certain order types, Order Instructions, and Times in Force not available for all Exchange systems or classes. This provision is consistent with current C2 Rule 6.10, which provides the Exchange with similar flexibility. As discussed above, the proposed rule change moves definitions of order types that will be available on C2 following the technology migration to proposed C2 Rule 1.1. The proposed rule change deletes all-or-none and market-on-close orders from Rule 6.10, as they will no longer be available on C2 following the technology migration.
The proposed rule change deletes current Rule 6.11 regarding the opening process on C2, as that opening process will not be available on C2 following the technology migration. Proposed Rule 6.11 describes the opening process that will apply to C2 following the technology migration, which is substantively the same as the current opening process on EDGX.
Proposed Rule 6.11(a) describes the order entry period. The System accepts orders and quotes (including GTC and GTD orders remaining on the Book from the previous trading day) for inclusion in the opening process (the “Opening Process”) beginning at 7:30 a.m. and continues to accept market and limit orders and quotes until the time when the System initiates the Opening Process in that option series (the “Order Entry Period”). The System does not accept IOC or FOK orders prior to the completion of the Opening Process. The System accepts but does not enforce MTP Modifiers during the Opening Process. Complex orders will not participate in the Opening Process described in proposed Rule 6.11, and instead may participate in the COB Opening Process described in proposed Rule 6.13(c). The System converts all ISOs received prior to the completion of the Opening Process into non-ISOs. Orders entered during the Order Entry Period are not eligible for execution until the opening trade occurs, as described below. Pursuant to current C2 Rule 6.11(a), the System begins accepting orders and quotes no earlier than 2:00 a.m. central time (that time is currently set to 7:30 a.m. eastern time). The Exchange believes beginning the order entry period at 7:30 a.m. eastern time will provide Users with sufficient time to submit orders and quotes prior to the beginning of the Opening Process. This time is the same as when the order entry period on C2 (and EDGX) currently begins. C2 currently also does not accept IOC or FOK orders during the pre-opening period (see current Rule 6.11(a)(1)), and it also does not accept ISOs (see current Rule 6.11(a)(1)) (rather than convert them to non-ISOs). The proposed functionality to convert ISOs to non-ISOs is the same as functionality that exists on EDGX today, and the Exchange believes this may increase the opportunity for execution of these orders during the Opening Process.
Following the technology migration, the C2 System will not have functionality available to disseminate opening messages as it does today, so the proposed rule change deletes current Rule 6.11(a)(2). Additionally, when the Opening Process begins, the System will not disseminate a notice as it does today, so the proposed rule change deletes current Rule 6.11(b) and (c)(2).
Following the technology migration, the Opening Process will be initiated at a similar time as it is today on C2. Proposed Rule 6.11(a) states after a time period (which the Exchange determines for all classes) following the first transaction in the securities underlying the options on the primary market that is disseminated (“First Listing Market Transaction”) after 9:30 a.m. with respect to Equity Options, or following 9:30 a.m. with respect to Index Options, the related option series open automatically in a random order, staggered over regular intervals of time (the Exchange determines the length and number of these intervals for all classes) pursuant to proposed subparagraphs (2) through (5). This is substantively the same as EDGX Rule 21.7(a). The proposed times will be the same for all classes of Equity Options, and all classes of Index Options, unlike currently on C2 (see current Rule 6.11(b)), where the opening of certain equity classes is triggered by time rather than the First Listing Market Transaction, and the opening of certain index classes is triggered by the receipt of a disseminated index value. Additionally, current C2 Rule 6.11(c) provides for a similar Exchange-configurable delay before a series opens and provides for series to open in a random, staggered order over Exchange-determined time intervals.
Proposed Rule 6.11(a)(2) describes how the new C2 System will calculate the opening price of a series. The System determines a single price at which a particular option series will be opened (the “Opening Price”) within 30 seconds of the First Listing Market Transaction or 9:30 a.m., as applicable. If there are no contracts in a series that would execute at any price, the System will open the series for trading without determining an Opening Price. The Opening Price, if determined to be valid as described below, of a series will be:
(a) If there is both an NBB and NBO, the midpoint of the NBBO (if the midpoint is a half increment, the System rounds down to the nearest minimum increment (the “NBBO Midpoint”);
(b) if the NBBO Midpoint is not valid, the last disseminated transaction price in the series after 9:30 a.m. (the “Last Print”); or
(c) if the NBBO Midpoint and the Last Print are not valid, the last disseminated transaction in the series from the previous trading day (the “Previous Close”).
If the NBBO Midpoint, Last Print, and Previous Close are not valid, the
For purposes of validating the Opening Price:
(a) the NBBO Midpoint, the Last Print, or the Previous Close is a valid price if it is not outside the NBBO, and the price is no more than the following Minimum Amount away from the NBB or NBO for the series:
(b) the Last Print or Previous Close is a valid price if there is no NBB and no NBO, or there is a NBB (NBO) and no NBO (NBB) and the price is equal to or greater (less) than the NBB (NBO).
While these conditions to determine the validity of an opening price differ than the opening conditions currently applied on C2, the Exchange believes application of the proposed conditions will still determine a reasonable and fair opening price for series on C2. The proposed process to determine and validate an Opening Price is substantively the same as the process currently used on EDGX.
Proposed Rule 6.11(a)(4) states after establishing a valid Opening Price, the System matches orders and quotes in the System that are priced equal to or more aggressively than the Opening Price in accordance with priority applicable to the class pursuant to Rule 6.12. In other words, the System allocates orders and quotes in a class during the Opening Process using the same allocation from Rule 6.12(a) the Exchange applies to the class intraday. Matches occur until there is no remaining volume or an imbalance of orders. All orders and quotes (or unexecuted portions) matched pursuant to the Opening Process will be executed at the Opening Price. The System enters any non-executed orders and quotes (or unexecuted portions) into the Book in time sequence, where they may be processed in accordance with Rule 6.12. The System cancels any OPG orders (or unexecuted portions) that do not execute during the Opening Process. Proposed subparagraph (a)(5) states if the Exchange opens a series for trading when the NBBO Midpoint, Last Print, and Previous Close are not valid as described above, the System enters non-executed orders and quotes (or unexecuted portions) into the Book in time sequence, where they may be processed in accordance with Rule 6.12. This is similar to the opening rotation period described in current Rule 6.11(c) and Interpretation and Policy .01.
Proposed Rule 6.11(a)(5) provides if the Exchange opens a series for trading when the NBBO Midpoint, Last Print, and Previous Close are not valid as described above, the System enters non-executed orders and quotes (or unexecuted portions) into the Book in time sequence, where they may be posted, cancelled, executed, or routed in accordance with proposed Rule 6.12. This is similar C2's current authority to compel opening in a series even if the opening conditions are not met, as set forth in current Rule 6.11(e).
Proposed Rule 6.11(b) describes how the Opening Process will be used to reopen trading following a halt. The Opening Process following a trading halt will be the same as the one used for regular trading (as described above), except as modified by proposed paragraph (b). Proposed Rule 6.11(b)(1) states there will be an Order Entry Period that begins immediately when the Exchange halts trading in the series if there is a Regulatory Halt (
The proposed rule change moves current Rule 6.11(e) regarding the Exchange's ability to deviate from the standard opening procedure to proposed Rule 6.11(c).
Current C2 Rule 6.11 may be used for closing; however, the proposed rule change only applies to openings. Because C2 generally does not use its current process for a closing, the Exchange does not believe the fact that the proposed process may only be used for openings following the technology migration will impact trading on C2. Therefore, the proposed rule change deletes current C2 Rule 6.11(g).
The proposed rule change moves current Rule 6.11, Interpretation and Policy .03 regarding how the System handles market orders if the underlying security is in a limit up-limit down state during the opening process to proposed Rule 6.11(d).
Proposed Rule 6.11 is substantively the same as EDGX Rule 21.7, and the Exchange believes the proposed opening process (based on current use on EDGX) is a fair and orderly way to open series on C2 following the technology migration.
The proposed rule change deletes current Rule 6.11, Interpretation and Policy .02 regarding Exchange determinations made pursuant to Rule 6.11, as that is replaced by proposed Rule 1.2.
Proposed Rule 6.12 describes how the System will process, display, prioritize,
Currently on C2, with respect to the pro-rata allocation algorithm, the System allocates contracts to the first resting order or quote proportionally according to size (based on the number of contracts to be allocated and the size of the resting orders and quotes). Then, the System recalculates the number of contracts to which each remaining resting order and quote is afforded proportionally according to size (based on the number of remaining contracts to be allocated and the size of the remaining resting orders and quotes) and allocates contracts to the next resting order or quote. The System repeats this process until it allocates all contracts from the incoming order or quote. Following the System migration, the System instead will allocate executable quantity to the nearest whole number, with fractions
Proposed Rule 6.12(a)(3) states displayed orders have priority over nondisplayed orders. This is consistent with current C2 Rule 6.12(c)(1). Following migration, the only nondisplayed orders will be the reserve portions of reserve orders (as discussed above, all-or-none orders will no longer be available).
The proposed rule change deletes current C2 Rule 6.12(a)(3) and (b), which permit the Exchange to apply customer priority, trade participation rights, or additional priority overlays (small order and market turner) to classes. The Exchange does not currently, and does not intend to, apply any of these priority overlays to any class. Therefore, it is not necessary to include these Rules in the C2 Rulebook, and deleting these rules will have no impact on C2 trading.
Proposed Rule 6.12(b) describes a new Price Adjust process, which is a re-pricing mechanism offered to Users on EDGX.
If the NBBO changes so that an order subject to Price Adjust would not lock or cross a Protected Quotation, the System gives the order a new timestamp and displays the order at the price that locked the Protected Quotation at the time of entry. All orders the System re-ranked and re-displayed pursuant to Price Adjust retain their priority as compared to other orders subject to Price Adjust based upon the time the System initially received such orders. Following the initial ranking and display of an order subject to Price Adjust, the System will only re-rank and re-display an order to the extent it achieves a more aggressive price. The System adjusts the ranked and displayed price of an order subject to Price Adjust once or multiple times depending upon the User's instructions and changes to the prevailing NBBO. A limit order subject to the Price Adjust process will not be displayed at any price worse than its limit price. This re-pricing mechanism (in addition to the proposed Cancel Back instruction described above) is an additional way in which C2 will ensure compliance with locked and crossed market rules in Chapter 6, Section of the C2 Rulebook and is substantively the same as EDGX Rule 21.1(i). It also provides Users with additional flexibility regarding how they want the System to handle their orders.
Proposed Rule 6.12(c) describes how the System will handle orders in additional circumstances. Proposed subparagraph (1) states, subject to the exceptions contained in Rule 6.82(b), the System does not execute an order at a price that trades through a Protected Quotation of another options exchange. The System routes an order a User designates as routable in compliance with applicable Trade-Through restrictions. The System cancels or rejects any order not eligible for routing or the Price Adjust process that is entered with a price that locks or crosses a Protected Quotation of another options exchange. C2's System currently will not execute orders at trade-through prices, consistent with Chapter 6, Section E of the Rules. This provision is substantively the same as EDGX Rule 21.6(e) and (f).
Additionally, the proposed rule change modifies the handling of stop orders to state the System cancels or rejects a buy (sell) stop or stop-limit order if the NBB (NBO) at the time the System receives the order is equal to or above (below) the stop price, and accepts a buy (sell) stop or stop-limit order if the consolidated last sale price at the time the System receives the order is equal to or above (below) the stop price.
Proposed Rule 6.12(c)(3) states the System cancels or rejects a GTC or GTD order in an adjusted series.
Proposed Rule 6.12(c)(4) states the System does not execute an order with an MTP Modifier entered into the System against an order entered with an MTP Modifier and the same Unique Identifier, and instead handles them in accordance with Rule 1.1, as discussed above. This is consistent with the definition of MTP Modifiers added to Rule 1.1 above and substantively the same as EDGX Rule 21.8(k).
The proposed rule change moves provisions regarding how the System handles market and stop orders during a limit up-limit down state from current Rule 6.10, Interpretation and Policy .01 to proposed Rule 6.12(c)(5).
The proposed rule change deletes current C2 Rule 6.12(c) related to contingency orders. The Exchange does not believe the introductory language and subparagraphs (c)(2) and (3) are necessary, as the order instruction definitions discussed above and order handling instructions below contain detail regarding how the System will handle orders designated as stop, stop-limit, or reserve.
The proposed rule change deletes current Rule 6.12(e)(2), which states if the price or quantity of one side of a quote is changed, the unchanged side retains its priority position. Additionally, the proposed rule change deletes the reference in Rule 6.12(e)(1) related to the changed side of a quote. Current C2 functionality provides Market-Maker with the ability to submit two-sided quotes, to which the above provisions relates. Following the technology migration, there will be no such functionality available. Market-Makers will submit quotes using order functionality, but it will only permit one-sided quotes to be input. Therefore, these provisions are no longer applicable.
The proposed rule change deletes current Rule 6.12(g) regarding a complex order priority exception. Proposed Rule 6.13 (as described below) describes the priority rules related to the execution of complex orders, so current Rule 6.12(g) is not necessary. As further discussed below, complex orders will trade with leg markets prior to trading with other complex orders, and will never trade at the same price as the SBBO, which is consistent with current Rule 6.12(g).
The proposed rule change adds proposed Rule 6.12(g), which states options subject to a trading halt initiated pursuant to Rule 6.32 open for trading following the halt at the time specified in Rule 6.11, which is consistent with current Rule 6.11(f). Additionally, proposed Rule 6.12(g) states when trading resumes, the System places orders and quotes that do not execute during the Opening Process in the Book in time priority and processes or executes them as described in Rule 6.12. The Exchange believes this is a fair, objective process and simple systematic process to prioritize orders following a trading halt, and is consistent with EDGX Rule 21.8(j).
Proposed Rule 6.13 modifies C2's current complex order functionality to substantially conform to functionality that will be available on C2's new System and is currently used on EDGX. Trading of complex orders will be subject to all other Rules applicable to trading of orders, unless otherwise provided in Rule 6.13 (which is currently the case).
The proposed rule change moves the definitions of COA and COB to proposed paragraph (a). Additionally, the proposed rule change adds definitions of synthetic best bid or offer (“SBBO”) and synthetic national best bid or offer (“SNBBO”) to proposed paragraph (a), which are referred to in current C2 Rule 1.1 as derivative spread market and national spread market. The proposed rule change also adds the following terms to Rule 6.13(a):
• Complex strategy: The term “complex strategy” means a particular combination of components and their ratios to one another. New complex strategies can be created as the result of the receipt of a complex instrument creation request or complex order for a complex strategy that is not currently in the System. The Exchange is thus proposing two methods to create a new complex strategy, one of which is a message that a Trading Permit Holder can send to create the strategy and the other is a message a Trading Permit Holder can send that will generate the strategy and that is also an order in that same strategy. These methods will be equally available to all Trading Permit Holders, but the Exchange anticipates that Trading Permit Holders and other
• Regular trading: The term “regular trading” means trading of complex orders that occurs during a trading session other than (a) at the opening of the COB or re-opening of the COB for trading following a halt (described in paragraph (c) below) or (b) during the COA process (described in proposed Rule 6.13(d)).
These proposed defined terms are the same as those included in EDGX Rule 21.20(a).
Proposed Rule 6.13(b) describes the order types, Order Instructions, and Times-in-Force that are eligible for complex orders to be entered into and handled by the System. As an initial matter, proposed paragraph (b) states the Exchange determines which Times-in-Force of Day, GTC, GTD, IOC, or OPG are available for complex orders (including for eligibility to enter the COB and initiate a COA). The proposed rule change is also consistent with EDGX Rule 21.20(b). Complex orders are Book Only and may be market or limit orders. Because complex orders are not routable, and may not be Post Only, Book Only is the only available Order Instruction related to whether an order is routable or not routable. The only other available Order Instruction for complex orders is Attributable/Non-Attributable. This relates only to information that User wants, or does not want, included when a complex order is displayed, and has no impact on how complex orders are processed or execute. As they do for simple orders, certain Users want the ability to track their orders, such as which of the resting orders in the COB or which COA'd [sic] order is theirs. The Attributable designation means this information will appear in market data feeds and auction messages, permitting these Users to track their own orders.
Proposed paragraph (b) also adds the following instructions that are permissible for complex orders:
• Complex Only Orders: A Market-Maker may designate a Day or IOC order as “Complex Only,” which may execute only against complex orders in the COB and may not Leg into the Simple Book. Unless designated as Complex Only, and for all other Times-in-Force and Capacities, a complex order may execute against complex orders in the COB and may Leg into the Simple Book. The Complex Only Order option is analogous to functionality on EDGX. The Exchange also believes the proposed functionality is analogous to other types of functionality already offered by C2 that provides Trading Permit Holders, including Market-Makers, the ability to direct the Exchange not to route their orders away from the Exchange (Book Only). Similar to such analogous features, the Exchange believes that Market-Makers may utilize Complex Only Order functionality as part of their strategies to maintain additional control over their executions, in connection with their attempt to provide and not remove liquidity, or in connection with applicable fees for executions.
• COA-Eligible and Do-Not-COA Orders: The Exchange proposes to allow all types of orders to initiate a COA but proposes to have certain types of orders default to initiating a COA upon arrival with the ability to opt-out of initiating a COA and other types of orders default to not initiating a COA upon arrival with the ability to opt-in to initiating a COA. Upon receipt of an IOC complex order, the System does not initiate a COA unless a User marked the order to initiate a COA, in which case the System cancels any unexecuted portion at the end of the COA. Upon receipt of a complex order with any other Time-in-Force (except OPG), the System initiates a COA unless a User marked the order to not initiate a COA. Buy (sell) complex orders with User instructions to (or which default to) initiate a COA that are higher (lower) than the SBB (SBO) and higher (lower) than the price of complex orders resting at the top of the COB are “COA-eligible orders,” while buy (sell) complex orders with User instructions not to (or which default not to) initiate a COA or that are priced equal to or lower (higher) than the SBB (SBO) or equal to or lower (higher) than the price of complex orders resting at the top of the COB are “do-not-COA orders.” The Exchange believes that this gives market participants extra flexibility to control the handling and execution of their complex orders by the System by giving them the additional ability to determine whether they wish to have their complex order initiate a COA. The Exchange further believes that the proposed default values are consistent with the terms of the orders (
• Complex Orders with MTP Modifiers: Users may apply the following MTP Modifiers to complex orders: MTP Cancel Newest, MTP Cancel Oldest, and MTP Cancel Both. If a complex order would execute against a complex order in the COB with an MTP Modifier and the same Unique Identifier, the System handles the complex orders with these MTP Modifiers as described in Rule 1.1. If a complex order with an MTP Modifier would Leg into the Simple Book and execute against any leg on the Simple Book with an MTP Modifier and the same Unique Identifier, the System cancels the complex order. This will allow a User to avoid trading complex orders against its own orders or orders of affiliates, providing Users with an additional way to maintain control over their complex order executions.
Current Rules 6.10 and 6.13(b) and (c) provide C2 with authority to determine which order types are available for COB and COA (and current paragraph (b) states complex orders may be IOC, Day, or GTC, as GTD functionality is not currently available on C2). Proposed paragraph (b) is consistent with this current Exchange authority and expands the Times-in-Force the Exchange may
Proposed Rule 6.13(c) describes the process of accepting orders prior to the opening of the COB for trading (and prior to re-opening after a halt), and the process by which the Exchange will open the COB or re-open the COB following a halt (the “Opening Process”). The current COB opening process is described in current Rule 6.13, Interpretation and Policy .07, which the proposed rule change deletes. The proposed COB opening process is substantively the same as the EDGX COB opening process described in EDGX Rule 21.20(c)(A) through (D).
The COB Opening Process will occur at the beginning of each trading day and after a trading halt (similar to the current COB opening process, as stated in current Interpretation and Policy .07(b)). There will be a complex order entry period, during which the System will accept complex orders for inclusion in the COB Opening Process at the times and in the manner set forth in proposed Rule 6.11(a), except the Order Entry Period for complex orders ends when the complex strategy opens. Currently, C2 similarly accepts complex orders prior to the COB opening, at the same time it begins to accept simple orders. As discussed above, this time is changing from no earlier than 2:00 a.m. central to 7:30 a.m. eastern (which time is consistent with the current pre-open period on C2). The Exchange believes this provides Users with sufficient time to enter complex orders prior to the open. Complex orders entered during the Order Entry Period will not be eligible for execution until the COB Opening Process occurs. Beginning at 7:30 a.m. and updated every five seconds thereafter until the initiation of the COB Opening Process, the Exchange will disseminate indicative prices and order imbalance information based on complex orders queued in the System for the COB Opening Process. This is new functionality that will provide Users with information regarding the expected COB opening, which is the same as functionality available on EDGX (see EDGX Rule 21.20(c)(2)(A)).
The System initiates the COB Opening Process for a complex strategy after a number of seconds (which number the Exchange determines) after all legs of the strategy in the Simple Book are open for trading. This is consistent with the current COB Opening Process, as set forth in current Interpretation and Policy .07(a). All complex orders the System receives prior to opening a complex strategy pursuant to the COB Opening Process, including any delay applied by the Exchange, are eligible to be matched in the COB Opening Process and not during the Opening Process described in Rule 6.11. The proposed delay is consistent with current EDGX functionality and is additional detail in the C2 Rules. C2 similarly applies a delay period during the regular Opening Process, as described above.
If there are matching complex orders in a complex strategy, the System determines the COB opening price, which is the price at which the most complex orders can trade. If there are multiple prices that would result in the same number of complex orders executed, the System chooses the price that would result in the smallest remaining imbalance as the COB opening price. If there are multiple prices that would result in the same number of complex orders executed and the same “smallest” imbalance, the System chooses the price closest to the midpoint of the (i) SNBBO or (ii) if there is no SNBBO available, the highest and lowest potential opening prices as the COB opening price. If the midpoint price would result in an invalid increment, the System rounds the COB opening price up to the nearest permissible increment. If the COB opening price equals the SBBO, the System adjust the COB opening price to a price that is better than the corresponding bid or offer in the Simple Book by $0.01. This is consistent with EDGX Rule 21.20(c)(2)(C), except on EDGX, the opening price must improve the SBBO only if there are priority customers on the legs.
After the System determines a COB opening price, the Exchange executes matching complex orders in accordance with the priority in proposed Rule 6.12(a) applicable to the class at the COB opening price. The System enters any remaining complex orders (or unexecuted portions) into the COB, subject to a User's instructions. If there are no matching complex orders in a complex strategy, the System opens the complex strategy without a trade. If after an Exchange-established period of time that may not exceed 30 seconds, the System cannot match orders because (i) the System cannot determine a COB opening price (
Currently on C2, the System opens the COB in a similar manner, however it first attempts to match complex orders against orders in the Simple Book, then matches complex orders against each other. As proposed, and consistent with EDGX Rule 21.20(c)(2)(C), complex orders will not leg into the book upon the COB open (unless there are no matching complex orders and a complex strategy opens without a trade); however, the COB opening price must improve the SBBO by at least $0.01 as described above, thus providing protection to the leg markets (including customers). The proposed matching process for complex orders on the COB is similar to the process in current Interpretation and Policy .07(a)(ii). Additionally, C2 currently restricts valid opening trade prices to be within the SBBO rather than the SNBBO as the proposed opening process does. The SNBBO more accurately reflects the then-current market, rather than the SBBO, and thus the Exchange believes it is a better measure to use for purposes of determining the reasonability of the prices of orders.
Proposed Rule 6.13(d) describes the COA process for COA-eligible orders. Orders in all classes will be eligible to participate in COA. Upon receipt of a COA-eligible order, the System initiates the COA process by sending a COA auction message to all subscribers to the Exchange's data feeds that deliver COA auction messages. A COA auction message identifies the COA auction ID, instrument ID (
The System may initiate a COA in a complex strategy even though another COA in that complex strategy is ongoing. This concurrent COA functionality is not currently available on C2, but is available on EDGX (see EDGX Rule 21.20(d)(1)). The Exchange believes it will increase price improvement and execution opportunities for complex orders following the technology migration. The Exchange notes at the outset that based on how Exchange Systems operate (and computer processes generally), it is impossible for COAs to occur “simultaneously”, meaning that they would commence and conclude at exactly the same time. Thus, although it is possible as proposed for one or more COAs to overlap, each COA will be started in a sequence and with a time that will determine its processing. Thus, even if there are two COAs that commence and conclude at nearly the same time, each COA will have a distinct conclusion at which time the COA will be allocated.
If there are multiple COAs ongoing for a specific complex strategy, each COA concludes sequentially based on the time each COA commenced, unless terminated early as described below. At the time each COA concludes, the System allocates the COA-eligible order pursuant to proposed Rule 6.13(d)(5) and takes into account all COA Responses for that COA, orders in the Simple Book, and unrelated complex orders on the COB at the time the COA concludes. If there are multiple COAs ongoing for a specific complex strategy that are each terminated early as described below, the System processes the COAs sequentially based on the order in which they commenced. If a COA Response is not fully executed at the end of the identified COA to which the COA Response was submitted, the System cancels or rejects it at the conclusion of the specified COA.
In turn, when the first COA concludes, orders on the Simple Book and unrelated complex orders that then exist will be considered for participation in the COA. If unrelated orders are fully executed in such COA, then there will be no unrelated orders for consideration when the subsequent COA is processed (unless new unrelated order interest has arrived). If instead there is remaining unrelated order interest after the first COA has been allocated, then such unrelated order interest will be considered for allocation when the subsequent COA is processed. As another example, each COA Response is required to specifically identify the COA for which it is targeted and if not fully executed will be cancelled at the conclusion of the COA. Thus, COA Responses will only be considered in the specified COA.
The proposed COA process is substantively the same as the COA process described in EDGX Rule 21.20(d), except there will be no customer priority on C2 for simple or complex orders.
Proposed subparagraph (d)(3) defines the Response Time Interval as the period of time during which Users may submit responses to the COA auction message (“COA Responses”). The Exchange determines the duration of the Response Time Interval, which may not exceed 500 milliseconds. This is similar to current subparagraph (c)(3)(B), except the proposed rule change reduces the maximum time period from three seconds to 500 milliseconds. The Exchange believes that 500 milliseconds is a reasonable amount of time within which participants can respond to a COA auction message, as it is the maximum timeframe in EDGX Rule 21.20(d)(3). The current timer on C2 is 20 milliseconds, and therefore the Exchange believes market believes a maximum response time of 500 milliseconds is sufficient to respond to auctions.
However, the Response Time Interval terminates prior to the end of that time duration:
(1) When the System receives a non-COA-eligible order on the same side as the COA-eligible order that initiated the COA but with a price better than the COA price, in which case the System terminates the COA and processes the COA-eligible order as described below and posts the new order to the COB; or
(2) when the System receives an order in a leg of the complex order that would improve the SBBO on the same side as the COA-eligible order that initiated the COA to a price equal to or better than the COA price, in which case the System terminates the COA and processes the COA-eligible order as described below, posts the new order to the COB, and updates the SBBO.
These circumstances that cause a Response Time Interval to terminate prior to the end of the above-noted time duration are substantively the same as EDGX Rule 21.20(d)(5)(C)(i) and (ii). EDGX Rule 21.20(d)(5)(C)(iii) does not apply to C2, as it relates to Priority Customer orders, which have no allocation priority on C2. Current C2 Rule 6.13(c)(8)(C) describes how the System currently handles incoming COA-eligible orders on the same side of the original COA order at a better price. The proposed rule change deletes that provision, as it is being replaced by the functionality above (which order terminates a COA in that circumstance rather than joins the COA, but still provides execution opportunities for the new incoming order by placing it on the COB). The proposed rule change deletes current C2 Rule 6.13(c)(8), which describes current circumstances that cause a COA to end early, as those will no long apply following the technology migration. The proposed rule change deletes current Rule 6.13(c)(8)(A) and (B) regarding incoming COA-eligible orders received during the Response Time Interval, as those orders may initiate a separate COA under the proposed rule change that permits concurrent COAs. The proposed rule change deletes current Rule 6.13(c)(D) and (E) relating to incoming do-not-COA orders and changes in the leg markets that would terminate an ongoing COA, as under the proposed rules, those new orders would not terminate a COA but would be eligible to execute against the COA-eligible order at the end of the COA) (see proposed subparagraph (d)(2), which states execution will occur against orders in the Simple Book and COB at the time the COA concludes). Ultimately, these incoming orders are eligible for execution against a COA-eligible order under current and proposed rules. The proposed rule change merely changes the potential execution time to the end of the full response interval time from an abbreviated response interval time.
Proposed subparagraph (d)(4) describes COA Responses that may be submitted during the Response Time Interval for a specific COA. The System accepts a COA Response(s) with any Capacity in $0.01 increments during the Response Time Interval. Current subparagraph (c)(3) permits the Exchange to determine whether Market-Makers assigned to a class and Trading Permit Holders acting as agent for orders resting on the top of the COB in the relevant series, or all Trading Permit Holders, may submit COA Responses. Currently, the Exchange permits all Trading Permit Holders to submit COA Responses, so the proposed rule change is consistent with current C2 practice and merely eliminates this flexibility.
A COA Response must specify the price, size, side of the market (
During the Response Time Interval, COA Responses are not firm, and Users can modify or withdraw them at any time prior to the end of the Response Time Interval, although the System applies a new timestamp to any modified COA Response (unless the modification was to decrease its size), which will result in loss of priority. The Exchange does not display COA Responses. At the end of the Response Time Interval, COA Responses are firm (
Proposed subparagraph (d)(5) describes how COA-eligible orders are processed at the end of the Response Time Interval. At the end of the Response Time Interval, the System executes a COA-eligible order (in whole or in part) against contra side interest in price priority. If there is contra side interest at the same price, the System allocates the contra side interest as follows:
(1) Orders and quotes in the Simple Book for the individual leg components of the complex order through Legging (subject to proposed paragraph (g), as described below), which the System allocates in accordance with the priority in proposed Rule 6.12(a) applicable to the class.
(2) COA Responses and unrelated orders posted to the COB, which the System allocates in accordance with the priority in proposed Rule 6.12(a) applicable to the class.
This allocation is similar to the current allocation priority on C2 following a COA, as set forth in current C2 Rule 6.13(c)(5), except the proposed rule allocates COA-eligible orders to COA responses and resting complex orders in the same priority as it does simple orders, rather than providing public customer complex orders and COA response with priority. The Exchange believes it is appropriate for complex orders to allocate in the same manner as simple orders. Additionally, on EDGX, COA responses and unrelated orders on the COB allocate in time priority, and Leg into the Simple Book in pro-rata priority, as that is the only allocation algorithm available for simple orders on EDGX. EDGX prioritizes customer orders in the simple book. As discussed above, there will be no customer priority on C2—this applies to both the Simple Book and the COB. However, by trading with the legs first, this provides protection to customer orders in the legs as well, and ensure no complex orders will trade against the COB ahead of customer orders in the legs.
Proposed subparagraph (d)(5)(B) states the System enters any COA-eligible order (or unexecuted portion) that does not execute at the end of the COA into the COB (if eligible for entry), and applies a timestamp based on the time it enters the COB (see current C2 Rule 6.13(c)(6)). The System cancels or rejects any COA-eligible order (or unexecuted portion) that does not execute at the end of the COA if not eligible for entry into the COB or in accordance with the User's instructions. Once in the COB, the order may execute pursuant to proposed paragraph (e) following evaluation pursuant to proposed paragraph (i), both as described below, and remain on the COB until they execute or are cancelled or rejected. These provisions are substantively the same as EDGX Rule 21.20(d)(5)(A) and (B).
Proposed Rule 6.13(e) describes how the System will handle do-not-COA orders (
(1) Orders and quotes in the Simple Book for the individual leg components of the complex order through Legging (as described below), which the System allocates in accordance with the priority in proposed Rule 6.12(a) applicable to the class.
(2) Complex orders resting on the COB, which the System allocates in accordance with the priority in proposed Rule 6.12(a) applicable to the class.
The System enters any do-not-COA order (or unexecuted portion) that cannot execute against the individual leg markets or complex orders into the COB (if eligible for entry), and applies a timestamp based on the time it enters the COB. The System cancels or rejects any do-not-COA order (or unexecuted portion) that would execute at a price outside of the SBBO, if not eligible for entry into the COB, or in accordance with the User's instructions. Complex orders resting on the COB may execute pursuant to proposed paragraph (e) following evaluation pursuant to proposed paragraph (i), both as described below, and remain on the COB until they execute or are cancelled or rejected.
The proposed rule change is similar to current C2 Rule 6.13(b)(1). Additionally, the proposed rule change is substantively the same as EDGX Rule 21.20(c)(3)(B) and (5)(D), except for the priority of execution. As discussed above, on C2, complex orders will trade against the leg markets ahead of the COB (including customer orders), but will not prioritize customer orders on the leg markets. As discussed above, this is consistent with C2's allocation, which provides no customer priority.
Proposed Rule 6.13(f)(1) states the minimum increment for bids and offers on a complex order is $0.01, and the components of a complex order may be executed in $0.01 increments, regardless of the minimum increments otherwise applicable to the individual components of the complex order. This is consistent with current and proposed Rule 6.4. Proposed Rule 6.13(f)(2) provides the System does not execute a complex order pursuant to Rule 6.13 at a net price (1) that would cause any component of the complex strategy to be executed at a price of zero, (2) worse than the SBBO, (3) that would cause any component of the complex strategy to be executed at a price worse than the individual component price on the Simple Book, (4) worse than the price that would be available if the complex order Legged into the Simple Book, or (5) ahead of orders on the Simple Book without improving the BBO on at least one component by at least $0.01. The System executes complex orders without consideration of any prices for the complex strategy that might be available on other exchanges trading the same complex strategy; provided, however, that such complex order price may be subject to the drill-through price protection described below. This is substantively the same as EDGX Rule 21.20(c). However, because complex orders will execute against the leg markets (including customer orders on
Proposed paragraph (g) adopts restrictions on the ability of complex orders to Leg into the Simple Book. Specifically, a complex order may Leg into the Simple Book pursuant to proposed subparagraphs (d)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(i), subject to the restrictions in proposed paragraph (g), if it can execute in full or in a permissible ratio and if it has no more than a maximum number of legs (which the Exchange determines on a class-by-class basis and may be two, three or four), subject to the following restrictions:
(1) All two leg COA-eligible Customer complex orders may Leg into the Simple Book without restriction.
(2) Complex orders for any other Capacity with two option legs that are both buy or both sell and that are both calls or both puts may not Leg into the Simple Book. These orders may execute against other complex orders on the COB.
(3) All complex orders with three or four option legs that are all buy or all sell (regardless of whether the option legs are calls or puts) may not Leg into the Simple Book. These orders may execute against other complex orders on the COB.
The proposed rule change is substantively the same as EDGX Rule 21.20(c)(2)(F), except it does not include restrictions related to Customer orders, because Customer priority will not apply on C2. These restrictions serve the same purpose as the protection included in current C2 Rule 6.13(c)(2)(A), which is to ensure that Market-Makers providing liquidity do not trade above their established risk tolerance levels. Currently, liquidity providers (typically Market Makers, though such functionality is not currently limited to registered Market Makers) in the Simple Book are protected by way of the Risk Monitor Mechanism by limiting the number of contracts they execute as described above. The Risk Monitor Mechanism allows Market-Makers and other liquidity providers to provide liquidity across potentially hundreds of options series without executing the full cumulative size of all such quotes before being given adequate opportunity to adjust the price and/or size of their quotes.
All of a participant's quotes in each option class are considered firm until such time as the Risk Monitor Mechanism's threshold has been equaled or exceeded and the participant's quotes are removed by the Risk Monitor Mechanism in all series of that option class. Thus the Legging of complex orders presents higher risk to Market-Makers and other liquidity providers as compared to simple orders being entered in multiple series of an options class in the simple market, as it can result in such participants exceeding their established risk thresholds by a greater number of contracts. Although Market-Makers and other liquidity providers can limit their risk through the use of the Risk Monitor Mechanism, the participant's quotes are not removed until after a trade is executed. As a result, because of the way complex orders leg into the regular market as a single transaction, Market-Makers and other liquidity providers may end up trading more than the cumulative risk thresholds they have established, and are therefore exposed to greater risk. The Exchange believes that Market Makers and other liquidity providers may be compelled to change their quoting and trading behavior to account for this additional risk by widening their quotes and reducing the size associated with their quotes, which would diminish the Exchange's quality of markets and the quality of the markets in general.
Proposed Rule 6.13(h) contains additional provisions regarding the handling of complex orders:
• A complex market order or a limit order with a price that locks or crosses the then-current opposite side SBBO and does not execute because the SBBO is the best price but not available for execution (because it does not satisfy the complex order ratio or the complex order cannot Leg into the Simple Book) enters the COB with a book and display price that improves the then-current opposite side SBBO by $0.01. If the SBBO changes, the System continuously reprices the complex order's book and display price based on the new SBBO (up to the limit price, if it is a limit order), subject to the drill-through price protection described in Rule 6.14(b), until: (A) The complex order has been executed in its entirety; or (B) the complex order (or unexecuted portion) of the complex order is cancelled or rejected. This provision is substantively the same as EDGX Rule 21.20(c)(4) and (6), except it improves the SBBO by $0.01 in all cases. This is consistent with the proposed C2 rule to trade with the leg markets ahead of the COB. The purpose of using the calculated SBBO is to enable the System to determine a valid trading price range for complex strategies and to protect orders resting on the Simple Book by ensuring that they are executed when entitled. Additionally, this process ensures the System will not execute any component of a complex order at a price that would trade through an order on the Simple Book. The Exchange believes that this is reasonable because it prevents the components of a complex order from trading at a price that is inferior to a price at which the individual components may be traded on the Exchange or ahead of the leg markets.
• If there is a zero NBO for any leg, the System replaces the zero with a price $0.01 above NBB to calculate the SNBBO, and complex orders with any buy legs do not Leg into the Simple Book. If there is a zero NBB, the System replaces the zero with a price of $0.01, and complex orders with any sell legs do not Leg into the Simple Book. If there is a zero NBB and zero NBO, the System replaces the zero NBB with a price of $0.01 and replaces the zero NBO with a price of $0.02, and complex orders do not Leg into the Simple Book. The SBBO and SNBBO may not be calculated if the NBB or NBO is zero (as noted above, if the best bid or offer on the Exchange is not available, the System uses the NBB or NBO when calculating the SBBO). As discussed above, permissible execution prices are based on the SBBO. If the SBBO is not available, the System cannot determine permissible posting or execution pricing for a complex order (which are based on the SBBO), which could reduce execution opportunities for complex orders. If the System were to use the zero bid or offer when calculating the SBBO, it may also result in executions at erroneous prices (since there is no market indication for the price at which the leg should execute). For example, if a complex order has a buy leg in a series with no offer, there is no order in the leg markets against which this leg component could execute. This is consistent with functionality on EDGX, and the proposed rule change is merely including this detail in the C2 rules. This is also consistent with the proposed rule change (and EDGX rule) that states complex order executions are not permitted if the price of a leg would be zero. Additionally, this is similar to the proposed rule change described above to improve the posting price of a complex order by $0.01 if it would otherwise lock the SBBO. The proposed rule change is a reasonable process to ensure complex orders receive execution opportunities, even if there is no interest in the leg markets.
Proposed Rule 6.13(i) states the System evaluates an incoming complex order upon receipt after the open of trading to determine whether it is a COA-eligible order or a do-not-COA order and thus whether it should be processed pursuant to proposed paragraph (d) or (e), respectively. The System also re-evaluates a complex order resting on the COB (including an order (or unexecuted portion) that did not execute pursuant to proposed paragraph (d) or (e) upon initial receipt) (1) at time the COB opens, (2) following a halt, and (3) during the trading day when the leg market price or quantity changes to determine whether the complex order can execute (pursuant to proposed Rule 6.13(e) described above), should be repriced (pursuant to proposed paragraph (h)), should remain resting on the COB, or should be cancelled. This is consistent with EDGX Rule 21.20(c)(2)(G) and (c)(5). This evaluation process ensures that the System is monitoring and assessing the COB for incoming complex orders, and changes in market conditions or events that cause complex orders to reprice or execute, and conditions or events that result in the cancellation of complex orders on the COB. This ensures the integrity of the Exchange's System in handling complex orders and results in a fair and orderly market for complex orders on the Exchange.
Proposed Rule 6.13(j) states the System cancels or rejects a complex market order it receives when the underlying security is subject to a limit up-limit down state, as defined in Rule 6.39. If during a COA of a COA-eligible market order, the underlying security enters a limit up-limit down state, the System terminates the COA without trading and cancels or rejects all COA Responses. This is consistent with handling of simple market orders during a limit up-limit down state, and is substantively the same as EDGX Rule 21.20(d)(8) and current Rule 6.13(c)(9).
Proposed Rule 6.13(k) describes the impact of trading halts on the trading of complex orders. If a trading halt exists for the underlying security or a component of a complex strategy, trading in the complex strategy will be suspended. The System queues a Trading Permit Holder's open orders during a Regulatory Halt, unless the Trading Permit Holder entered instructions to cancel its open complex orders upon a Regulatory Halt, for participation in the re-opening of the COB as described below. A Trading Permit Holder's complex orders are cancelled unless the Trading Permit Holder instructed the Exchange not to cancel its orders. The COB will remain available for Users to enter and manage complex orders that are not cancelled. Incoming complex orders that could otherwise execute or initiate a COA in the absence of a halt will be placed on the COB. Incoming complex orders with a time in force of IOC will be cancelled or rejected.
If, during a COA, any component(s) and/or the underlying security of a COA-eligible order is halted, the COA ends early without trading and all COA Responses are cancelled or rejected. Remaining complex orders will be placed on the COB if eligible or will be cancelled. When trading in the halted component(s) and/or underlying security of the complex order resumes, the System will re-open the COB pursuant to proposed paragraph (c) (as described above). The System queues any complex orders designated for a re-opening following a halt until the halt has ended, at which time they are eligible for execution in the Opening Process. This proposed rule change regarding the handling of complex orders during a trading halt is substantively the same as EDGX Rule 21.20, Interpretation and Policy .05.
The Exchange believes the proposed provisions described above regarding complex order handling and executions provide a framework that will enable the efficient trading of complex orders in a manner that is similar to current C2 functionality and substantively the same as EDGX functionality. As described above, complex order executions are designed to work in concert with a priority of allocation that continues to respect the priority of allocations on the Simple Book while protecting orders in the Simple Book.
Proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 states Market-Makers are not required to quote on the COB. Complex strategies are not subject to any quoting requirements applicable to Market-Makers in the simple market. The Exchange does not take into account Market-Makers' volume executed in complex strategies when deterring whether Market-Makers meet their quoting obligations in the simple market. This codifies current C2 practice and is identical to EDGX Rule 21.20, Interpretation and Policy .01.
The proposed rule change deletes current Rule 6.13, Interpretation and Policy .02, which describes how orders resting on the COB may initiate a COA under certain conditions. This “re-COA” functionality will not be available on C2 following the technology migration. However, as described above, the System continuously evaluates orders resting on the COB for execution opportunities against incoming complex orders or orders in the leg markets. Pursuant to EDGX Rule 21.20(c)(5)(B), continual evaluation of orders on the COB does not determine whether orders may be subject to another COA. Therefore, the proposed rule change is consistent with EDGX rules, which do not permit “re-COA.”
Proposed Interpretation and Policy .02 states a Trading Permit Holder's dissemination of information related to COA-eligible orders to third parties or a pattern or practice of submitting orders that cause a COA to conclude early will be deemed conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade and a violation of Rule 4.1. This combines EDGX Rule 21.20, Interpretation and Policy .02 and current C2 Rule 6.13, Interpretation and Policy .03 into a single provision regarding behavior related to COAs that may be deemed inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade.
Stock-option orders will not be available on C2 following the technology migration, so the proposed rule change deletes all provisions related to, and references to, stock-option orders from Rule 6.13 (including Interpretation and Policy .06) and elsewhere in the Rules. Stock-option order functionality is not currently available on C2, so this proposed rule change will have no impact on C2 market participants.
As discussed above, proposed Rule 6.13 regarding complex orders is substantially the same as EDGX Rule 21.20 or current Rule 6.13, except for provisions related to priority, as C2 will not have customer priority. Proposed Rule 6.13 has nonsubstantive differences compared to EDGX Rule 21.20, which differences are intended to simplify the description of complex orders, re-organize the provisions, and eliminate duplicative language.
Current C2 Rule 6.14 describes SAL, an electronic auction mechanism that provides price improvement for simple orders. Pursuant to this rule, the Exchange may determine whether to make SAL available on C2. The proposed rule change deletes this rule
Proposed C2 Rule 6.14 consolidates all order and quote price protection mechanisms and risk controls into a single rule, and states the System's acceptance and execution of orders and quotes pursuant to the Rules, including proposed Rules 6.11 through 6.13, are subject to the price protection mechanisms and risk controls in proposed Rule 6.14. Proposed Rule 6.14 categorizes these mechanisms and controls as ones applicable to simple orders (proposed paragraph (a)), complex orders (proposed paragraph (b)), and all (
The following table identifies the current price protection mechanism and risk control, the current C2 Rule, the proposed C2 Rule, the corresponding EDGX rule (if any), and any proposed changes:
The proposed
Under the current EDGX debit/credit price reasonability check (see EDGX Rule 21.20.04(c)), the System only pairs calls (puts) if they have the same expiration date but different exercise prices or the same exercise price but different expiration dates. Under the current C2 debit/credit reasonability check, with respect to pairs with different expiration the System pairs of calls (puts) with different expiration dates if the exercise price for the call (put) with the farther expiration date is lower (higher) than the exercise price for the nearer expiration date in addition to those with different expiration dates and the same exercise price. The proposed rule change amends this check to pair orders in the same manner as EDGX, which is to pair calls (puts) if they have the same expiration date but different exercise prices or the same exercise price but different expiration dates.
Additionally, the proposed rule change deletes the exception for complex orders with European-style exercise. The Exchange no longer believes this exception is necessary and will expand this check to index options with all exercise styles.
The proposed Risk Monitor Mechanism is substantively the same as the functionality currently available on EDGX. Because there will no longer be separate order and quote functionality on C2 following the technology migration, there will no longer be separate mechanisms to monitor entry and execution rates, as there are on C2 today. Each User may establish limits for the following parameters in the Exchange's counting program. The System counts each of the following within a class (“class limit”) and across all classes for an EFID (“firm limit”) over a User-established time period (“interval”) on a rolling basis up to five minutes (except as set forth in (iv) below) and on an absolute basis for a trading day (“absolute limits”):
(i) Number of contracts executed (“volume”);
(ii) notional value of executions (“notional”);
(iii) number of executions (“count”); and
(iv) number of contracts executed as a percentage of number of contracts outstanding within an Exchange-designated time period or during the trading day, as applicable (“percentage”), which the System determines by calculating the percentage of a User's outstanding contracts that executed on each side of the market during the time period or trading day, as applicable, and then summing the series percentages on each side in the class.
When the System determines the volume, notional, count, or percentage:
(i) Exceeds a User's class limit within the interval or the absolute limit for the class, the Risk Monitor Mechanism cancels or rejects such User's orders or quotes in all series of the class and cancels or rejects any additional orders or quotes from the User in the class until the counting program resets (as described below).
(ii) exceeds a User's firm limit within the interval or the absolute limit for the firm, the Risk Monitor Mechanism cancels or rejects such User's orders or quotes in all classes and cancels or rejects any additional orders or quotes from the User in all classes until the counting program resets (as described below).
The Risk Monitor Mechanism will also attempt to cancel or reject any orders routed away to other exchanges.
The System processes messages in the order in which they are received. Therefore, it will execute any marketable orders or quotes that are executable against a User's order or quote and received by the System prior to the time the Risk Monitor Mechanism is triggered at the price up to the size of the User's order or quote, even if such execution results in executions in excess of the User's parameters.
The System will not accept new orders or quotes from a User after a class limit is reached until the User submits an electronic instruction to the System to reset the counting program for the class. The System will not accept new orders or quotes from a User after a firm limit is reached until the User manually notifies the Trade Desk to reset the counting program for the firm, unless the User instructs the Exchange to permit it to reset the counting program by submitting an electronic message to the System. The Exchange may restrict the number of User class and firm resets per second.
The System counts executed COA responses as part of the Risk Monitor Mechanism. The System counts individual trades executed as part of a complex order when determining whether the volume, notional, or count limit has been reached. The System counts the percentage executed of a complex order when determining whether the percentage limit has been reached.
The Risk Monitor Mechanism providers Users with similar ability to manage their order and execution risk to the quote risk monitor and rate checks currently available on C2. It merely uses different parameters and modifies the functionality to conform C2's new System.
With respect to various price protections and risk controls in current Rules 6.13, Interpretation and Policy .04, and 6.17, the Exchange has the authority to provide intraday relief by widening or inactivating one or more of the parameter settings for the mechanisms in those rules. This authority is included in proposed Interpretation and Policy .01, to provide this flexibility for all price protections and risk controls for which the Exchange sets parameters, providing the Exchange with flexibility it believes appropriate given previous experience with risk controls. The Exchange will continue to make and keep records to document all determinations to grant intraday relief, and periodically review these determinations for consistency with the interest of a fair and orderly market.
The proposed rule change moves the provision regarding the Exchange's ability to share User-designated risk settings in the System with a Clearing Trading Permit Holder that clears Exchange transactions on behalf of the User from the introduction of current Rule 6.17 to proposed Rule 6.14, Interpretation and Policy .02.
Proposed Rule 6.15 replaces current Rule 6.36 regarding routing of orders to other exchanges. C2 will continue to support orders that are designated to be routed to the NBBO as well as orders that will execute only within C2 (as discussed above). Orders designated to execute at the NBBO will be routed to other options markets for execution when the Exchange is not at the NBBO, consistent with the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan. Subject to the exceptions contained in Rule 6.81, the System will ensure that an order will not be executed at a price that trades through another options exchange. An order that is designated by a Trading Permit Holder as routable will be routed in compliance with applicable Trade-Through restrictions. Any order entered with a price that would lock or cross a Protected Quotation that is not eligible for either routing, or the Price Adjust process described above, will be cancelled.
Proposed Rule 6.15 states for System securities, the order routing process is available to Users from 9:30 a.m. until market close. Users can designate an order as either available or not available for routing. Orders designated as not available for routing (either Book Only or Post Only) are processed pursuant to Rule 6.12. For an order designated as available for routing, the System first checks for the Book for available contracts for execution against the order pursuant to Rule 6.12. Unless otherwise instructed by the User, the System then designates the order (or unexecuted portion) as IOC and routes it to one or more options exchanges for potential execution, per the User's instructions. After the System receives responses to the order, to the extent it was not executed in full through the routing process, the System processes the order (or unexecuted portion) as follows, depending on parameters set by the User when the incoming order was originally entered:
• Cancels the order (or unexecuted portion) back to the User;
• posts the unfilled balance of the order to the Book, subject to the Price Adjust process described in proposed Rule 6.12(b), if applicable. [sic]
• repeats the process described above by executing against the Book and/or routing to the other options exchanges until the original, incoming order is executed in its entirety;
• repeats the process described above by executing against the Book and/or routing to the other options exchanges until the original, incoming order is executed in its entirety, or, if not executed in its entirety and a limit order, posts the unfilled balance of the order on the Book if the order's limit price is reached; or
• to the extent the System is unable to access a Protected Quotation and there are no other accessible Protected Quotations at the NBBO, cancels or rejects the order back to the User, provided, however, that this provision does not apply to Protected Quotations published by an options exchange against which the Exchange has declared self-help.
Currently, C2 automatically routes intermarket sweep orders, consistent with the definition in Rule 6.80(8). This routing process is functionally equivalent to the current C2 routing process, and referred to as SWPA and is specifically described in proposed Rule 6.15(a)(2)(B). Specifically, SWPA is a routing option (which will be the default routing option following migration, and thus, if no other routing option is specified by a User, a User's order subject to routing will be handled in the same way it is today). Following the technology migration, C2 will offer additional routing options identical to the routing options offered by EDGX.
• ROUT is a routing option under which the System checks the Book for available contracts to execute against an order and then sends it to destinations on the System routing table. A User may select either Route To Improve (“RTI”) or Route To Fill (“RTF”) for the ROUT routing option. RTI may route to multiple destinations at a single price level simultaneously while RTF may route to multiple destinations and at multiple price levels simultaneously.
• Destination specific is a routing option under which the System checks the Book for available contracts to execute against an order and then sends it to a specific away options exchange.
• Directed ISO is a routing option under which the System does not check the Book for available contracts and sends the order to another options exchange specified by the User. It is the enter Trading Permit Holder's responsibility, not the Exchanges responsibility, to comply with the requirements relating to Intermarket Sweep Orders.
The Exchange also proposes to offer two options for Re-Route instructions, Aggressive Re-Route and Super Aggressive Re-Route, either of which can be assigned to routable orders:
• Pursuant to the Aggressive Re-Route instruction, if the remaining portion of a routable order has been posted to the Book pursuant proposed paragraph (a)(1) above, if the order's price is subsequently crossed by the quote of another accessible options exchange, the System routes the order to the crossing options exchange if the User has selected the Aggressive Re-Route instruction.
• Pursuant to the Super Aggressive Re-Route instruction, to the extent the unfilled balance of a routable order has been posted to the Book pursuant to subparagraph (a)(1) above, if the order's price is subsequently locked or crossed by the quote of another accessible options exchange, the System routes the order to the locking or crossing options exchange if the User has selected the Super Aggressive Re-Route instruction.
Proposed Rule 6.15(b) states the System does not rank or maintain in the Book pursuant to Rule 6.12 orders it has routed to other options exchanges, and therefore those orders are not available to execute against incoming orders. Once routed by the System, an order becomes subject to the rules and procedures of the destination options exchange including, but not limited to, order cancellation. If a routed order (or unexecuted portion) is subsequently returned to the Exchange, the order (or unexecuted portion), the order receives a new time stamp reflected the time the System receives the returned order. Proposed Rule 6.15(c) states Users whose orders are routed to other options exchanges must honor trades of those orders executed on other options exchanges to the same extent they would be required to honor trades of those orders if they had executed on the Exchange. These provisions are consistent with current C2 functionality, and the proposed rule change adds this detail to the C2 Rules. They are also substantively the same as EDGX Rule 21.9(b) and (c).
C2 will route orders in options via Cboe Trading, which will serve as the Outbound Router of the Exchange, as discussed above. The Outbound Router will route orders in options listed and open for trading on C2 to other options exchanges pursuant to C2 Rules solely on behalf of C2. The Outbound Router is subject to regulation as a facility of the Exchange, including the requirement to file proposed rule changes under Section 19 of the Exchange Act. Use of Cboe Trading or Routing Services as described below to route orders to other market centers is optional. Parties that do not desire to use Cboe Trading or other Routing Services provided by the Exchange must designate orders as not available for routing.
In the event the Exchange is not able to provide Routing Services through its affiliated broker-dealer, the Exchange will route orders to other options exchanges in conjunction with one or more routing brokers that are not affiliated with the Exchange. C2 does not currently have an affiliated broker-dealer that provides routing services, and thus it currently routes orders to other options exchanges in conjunction with one or more routing brokers not affiliated with the Exchange, as provided in current Rule 6.36(a). In connection with Routing Services, the same conditions will apply to routing brokers that currently apply to C2 routing brokers pursuant to current Rule 6.36(a) (which are proposed to be moved to Rule 6.15(e)) and are the same as EDGX Rule 21.9(e).
Proposed Rule 6.15(f) states in addition to the Rules regarding routing to away options exchanges, Cboe Trading has, pursuant to Rule 15c3-5 under the Exchange Act, implemented certain tests designed to mitigate the financial and regulatory risks associated with providing Trading Permit Holders with access to away options exchanges. Pursuant to the policies and procedures developed by Cboe Trading to comply with Rule 15c3-5, if an order or series of orders are deemed to be erroneous or duplicative, would cause the entering Trading Permit Holder's credit exposure to exceed a preset credit threshold, or are noncompliant with applicable pre-trade regulatory requirements, Cboe Trading will reject the orders prior to routing and/or seek to cancel any orders that have been routed. This provision is the same as EDGX Rule 21.9(f), and currently applies to Cboe Trading.
The proposed rule, including the various routing options, is substantially the same as EDGX Rule 21.9. The various routing options will provide Users with additional flexibility to instruct the Exchange how to handle the routing of their orders. The Re-Route instructions will provide unexecuted orders resting on the Book with additional execution opportunities. The proposed routing process and options are identical to those available on EDGX.
Current C2 Rule 6.18 describes HAL, a feature that automates handling of orders not at the NBBO by auctioning them at the NBBO for potential price improvement on the Exchange prior to routing. Pursuant to this rule, the Exchange may determine whether to make HAL available on C2. The proposed rule change deletes this rule (and makes conforming changes throughout the rules, including deleting references to HAL and Rule 6.18), as this functionality will not be available on C2 following the technology migration.
The proposed rule change deletes current C2 Rule 6.19 regarding types of order formats, as these formats are available on the current C2 system but will not be applicable on C2's new system following the technology migration. Information regarding order formats are available in technical specifications on the Exchange's website.
Proposed C2 Rule 6.28 states the System sends to a User aggregated and individual transaction reports for the User's transactions, which reports include transaction details; the contra party's EFID, clearing Trading Permit Holder account number, and Capacity; and the name of any away exchange if an order was routed for execution. The Exchange reveals a User's identity (1) when a registered clearing agency ceases to act for a participant, or the User's Clearing Trading Permit Holder, and the registered clearing agency determines not to guarantee the settlement of the User's trades, or (2) for regulatory purposes or to comply with an order of
Current C2 Rule 6.49 describes the C2 Trade Match System (“CTM”) functionality available on C2's current System, which permits Trading Permit Holders to update transaction reports. The functionality available on C2's System following the technology migration is called the Clearing Editor. The Clearing Editor, like CTM, allows Trading Permit Holders to update executed trades on their trading date and revise them for clearing. The Clearing Editor may be used to correct certain bona fide errors. Trading Permit Holders may change the following fields through the Clearing Editor: executing firm and contra firm; executing broker and contra broker; CMTA; account and subaccount (not just market-maker account and subaccount, as is the case currently on CTM): Customer ID; position effect (open/close); or Capacity (because there will be no customer priority on C2, there is no need to restrict Capacity changes as set forth in current Rule 6.49). The proposed rule change deletes Rule 6.49(b), which are fields Trading Permit Holders may change only if they provide notice to the Exchange, as Clearing Editor does not permit Trading Permit Holders to change these fields. If a Trading Permit Holder must change the series, quantity, buy or sell, or premium price, it must contact the Exchange pursuant to proposed Rule 6.29 regarding obvious errors. Current Rule 6.49(c) and Interpretation and Policy .01 are moved to Rule 6.31(c) and Interpretation and Policy .01 with no substantive changes.
C2 Rule 6.32 describes when the Exchange may halt trading in a class and is substantially similar to EDGX Rules 20.3 and 20.4. Current Rule 6.32(a) lists various factors, among others, the Exchange may consider when determining whether to halt trading in a class, but adds the following two to be consistent with EDGX Rule 20.3:
• Occurrence of an act of God or other event outside the Exchange's control; and
• occurrence of a System technical failure or failures including, but not limited to, the failure of a part of the central processing system, a number of Trading Permit Holder applications, or the electrical power supply to the System itself or any related system (the Exchange believes this broader factor regarding system functionality covers the current factor in paragraph (a)(4) regarding the status of a rotation, which is a system process).
As the current rule permits the Exchange to consider factors other than those currently listed, including the two factors proposed to be added (which the Exchange currently does consider when determining whether to halt a class), the proposed rule change is consistent current Rule 6.32(a). The proposed rule change moves the provision in Interpretation and Policy .02 to subparagraph (a)(1). The proposed rule change moves the provisions in current Interpretations and Policies .01 and .05 to proposed paragraph (c).
The proposed rule change adds proposed paragraph (b), which states if the Exchange determines to halt trading, all trading in the effected class(es) will be halted, and the System cancels all orders in the class(es) unless a User entered instructions to cancel all orders except GTC and GTD orders or not cancel orders during a halt. C2 disseminates through its trading facilities and over OPRA a symbol with respect to the class(es) indicating that trading in the class(es) has been halted. The Exchange makes available to vendors a record of the time and duration of the halt. Following the technology migration, C2 will have functionality availability that permits Trading Permit Holders to enter a standing instruction regarding the handling of its orders during a halt. The remainder of proposed paragraph (b) is consistent with C2's current practice. The proposed paragraph (b) is also substantively the same as EDGX Rule 20.3(b).
C2's new technology platform is currently the platform for EDGX and other Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, and thus has an established disaster recovery plan. Therefore, the proposed rule change deletes the majority of C2's disaster recovery provisions, contained in current Rules 6.45 and 6.34(f) (regarding mandatory testing), and adopts proposed Rule 6.34, which is substantially similar to EDGX Rule 2.4. Proposed Rule 6.34 states the Exchange maintains business continuity and disaster recovery plans, including backup systems, it may activate to maintain fair and orderly markets in the event of a systems failure, disaster, or other unusual circumstance that may threaten the ability to conduct business on the Exchange, which is consistent with current Rule 6.45(a).
Proposed Rule 6.34(b) states Trading Permit Holders that contribute a meaningful percentage of the Exchange's overall volume must connect to the Exchange's backup systems and participate in functional and performance testing as announced by the Exchange, which will occur at least once every 12 months. The Exchange has established the following standards to identify Trading Permit Holders that account for a meaningful percentage of the Exchange's overall volume and, taken as a whole, the constitute the minimum necessary for the maintenance of fair and orderly markets in the event of the activation of business continuity and disaster recovery plans:
• The Exchange will determine the percentage of volume it considers to be meaningful for purposes of this Rule.
• The Exchange will measure volume executed on the Exchange on a quarterly basis. The Exchange will also individually notify all Trading Permit Holders quarterly that are subject to this paragraph based on the prior calendar quarter's volume.
• If a Trading Permit Holder has not previously been subject to the requirements of this paragraph, such Trading Permit Holder will have until the next calendar quarter before such requirements are applicable.
Proposed Rule 6.34(c) states all Trading Permit Holders may connect to the Exchange's backup systems and participate in testing of such systems. Current Rule 6.45 similarly requires certain Trading Permit Holders designated by the Exchange to connect to back-up systems and participate in testing (current Rule 6.34(f) also requires participation in mandatory systems testing). The proposed rule change designates different but reasonable criteria for determining which Trading Permit Holders must participate in mandatory testing.
Proposed paragraphs (b) and (c) are consistent with Regulation SCI requirements, which apply to certain self-regulatory organizations (including the Exchange), alternative trading systems (“ATSs”), plan processors, and exempt clearing agencies (collectively, “SCI entities”), and requires these SCI entities to comply with requirements with respect to the automated systems central to the performance of their regulated activities. The Exchange takes pride in the reliability and availability of its systems. C2 has, and the Cboe Affiliate Exchanges that operate on the
Propose Rule 6.35 describes steps the Exchange may take to mitigate message traffic, based on C2's traffic with respect to target traffic levels and in accordance with C2's overall objective of reducing both peak and overall traffic. First, the System does not send an outbound message
The proposed rule change adds Interpretations and Policies .01 through .04 to Rule 6.50 regarding the order exposure requirement:
• Rule 6.50 prevents a Trading Permit Holder from executing agency orders to increase its economic gain from trading against the order without first giving other trading interest on the Exchange an opportunity to either trade with the agency order or to trade at the execution price when the Trading Permit Holder was already bidding or offering on the Book. Rule 6.50 imposes an exposure requirement of one second before such orders may execute. However, the Exchange recognizes that it may be possible for a Trading Permit Holder to establish a relationship with a customer or other person to deny agency orders the opportunity to interact on the Exchange and to realize similar economic benefits as it would achieve by executing agency orders as principal. It is a violation of the Rule for a Trading Permit Holder to be a party to any arrangement designed to circumvent this Rule by providing an opportunity for a customer to regularly execute against agency orders handled by the Trading Permit Holder immediately upon their entry into the System.
• It is a violation of Rule 6.50 for Trading Permit Holder to cause the execution of an order it represents as agent on C2 against orders it solicited from Trading Permit Holders and non-Trading Permit Holder broker-dealers, whether such solicited orders are entered into C2 directly by the Trading Permit Holder or by the solicited party (either directly or through another Trading Permit Holder), if the Trading Permit Holder fails to expose orders on C2 as required by the Rule.
• With respect to nondisplayed portions of reserve orders, the exposure requirement of Rule 6.50 is satisfied if the displayed portion of the order is displayed at its displayable price for one second.
• Prior to or after submitting an order to the System, a Trading Permit Holder cannot inform another Trading Permit Holder or any other third party of any of the terms of the order.
While these provisions are not currently stated in the C2 Rules, they are consistent with the C2's interpretation of current Rule 6.50. Current C2 Rule 6.50 is substantively the same as EDGX Rule 22.12, and the following proposed Interpretations and Policies .01 through .04 are substantively the same as EDGX Rule 22.12, Interpretations and Policies .01 through .04.
Current C2 Rule 6.51 describes the Automated Improvement Mechanism (“AIM”), an electronic auction mechanism that provides potential price improvement for eligible incoming orders, and current C2 Rule 6.52 describes the Solicitation Auction Mechanism (“SAM”), an electronic auction mechanism that provides potential price improvement for the all-or-none orders with size of 500 or more. Pursuant to those rules, the Exchange may determine whether to make this functionality available on C2. The proposed rule change deletes these rules (and makes conforming changes throughout the rules, including deleting references to AIM, SAM, and the rules), as this functionality will not be available on C2 following the technology migration.
The proposed rule change adds paragraph (d) to Rule 8.1, which states a Trading Permit Holder or prospective Trading Permit Holder adversely affected by an Exchange determination under this Chapter 8, including the Exchange's termination or suspension of a Trading Permit Holder's status as a Market-Maker or a Market-Maker's appointment to a class, may obtain a review of such determination in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 19. Current Rule 8.2 contains a similar provision applicable to that Rule; however, the remaining rules in Chapter 8 contain various provision that permit the Exchange to make determinations, which would be subject to review under Chapter 19. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to include a similar provision applicable to the entire Chapter 8.
The proposed rule change modifies rule provisions throughout Chapter 8 to clarify the distinction between Market-Maker registration and appointment. A Trading Permit Holder may register as a Market-Maker which is a function available on the Exchange. A Trading Permit Holder registered as a Market-Maker may select appointments to classes in which it agrees to satisfy obligations as a Market-Maker and
The proposed rule change renames Rule 8.2 to be Market-Maker Class Appointments, as the rule generally describes how a Market-Maker may obtain appointments to classes, rather than continuing Market-Maker registration. To retain status as a registered Market-Maker, a Market-Maker must satisfy its obligations in its appointed classes (as discussed below) and otherwise stay in good standing, as described in Rule 8.4 (as discussed below). Currently, and following the System migration, Market-Makers may select their own class appointments through an Exchange system. Rule 8.2(b) states a Market-Maker may register in one or more classes in a manner prescribed by the Exchange. The proposed rule change adds detail, which conforms to EDGX Rule 22.3(b), which states a Market-Maker may enter an appointment request via an Exchange-approved electronic interface with the Exchange's systems by 9:00 a.m., which appointment will become effective on the day the Market-Maker enters the appointment request. The Exchange notes Market-Makers on EDGX may select appointments to series, while Market-Makers on C2 will continue to be able to select appointments to a class, as they do today. This proposed process is similar to the one Market-Makers use on C2's current systems for selecting appointments. The proposed rule change deletes the language in current Rule 8.2(d) stating a Market-Maker may change its registered classes upon advance notification to the Exchange, as that is duplicative of proposed Rule 8.2(b), which requires Market-Makers to select appointments prior to a trading day for that appointment to become effective on that trading day.
The proposed rule change deletes the provision in current Rule 8.2(b) that permits the Exchange to register a Market-Maker in one or more classes of option contracts, as the Exchange does not, and does not intend, to impose appointments on Market-Makers. Similarly, the proposed rule change deletes current Rule 8.2(c), which states no option class registration may be made without the Market-Maker's consent to such registration, provided that refusal to accept a registration may be deemed sufficient cause for termination or suspension of a Market-Maker. As noted above, Market-Makers select their own appointments. Rules 8.1(b) and 8.4(b), among others, describe circumstances under which the Exchange may suspend or terminate a Trading Permit Holder's registration as a Market-Maker or a Market-Maker's appointment in a class. Additionally, the proposed rule change deletes the provision permitting it to arrange two or more classes of contracts into the groupings and make registrations to those groupings rather than to individual classes, as the Exchange does not, and does not intend, to create groups of registrations. Market-Makers only select appointments by class.
Proposed Rule 8.2(c) states a Market-Maker's appointment in a class confers the right of the Market-Maker to quote (using order functionality) in that class. On C2's current system, there is separate quote functionality for quoting in appointed classes. Following the technology migration, the new System permits Market-Makers to quote in appointed classes using order functionality (which is the case today on EDGX). A similar provision is contained in current Rule 8.2(d).
The proposed rule change adds proposed Rule 8.2(d), which references the Exchange's ability to limit appointments pursuant to proposed Rule 8.1(c), as described above.
Current Rule 8.2(d) describes the appointment costs of Market-Maker class appointments. The proposed rule change merely moves the description of appointment costs to proposed Rule 8.3.
The proposed rule change deletes current Rule 8.4(a)(2), which states a Market-Maker must continue to satisfy the Market-Maker qualification requirements specified by the Exchange, because it is redundant of the language in subparagraph (a)(1), which states a Market-Maker must continue to meet the general requirements for Trading Permit Holders set forth in Chapter 3 and Market-Maker requirements set forth in Chapter 8. These are generally the only requirements applicable to qualify as a Market-Maker.
Rule 8.5 currently describes general obligations imposed on Market-Makers, while Rule 8.6 describes requirements applicable to Market-Maker quotes (the proposed rule change renames Rule 8.6 to apply to all quote requirements rather than the firm quote requirement, which is still included in proposed Rule 8.6(a)). The proposed rule moves the description of the continuous quoting obligation to proposed Rule 8.6(d) from current Rule 8.5(a)(1), but there are no substantive changes to the continuous quoting obligation. The proposed rule change also adds that the Market-Maker continuous quoting obligations in proposed Rule 8.6(d) apply collectively to Market-Makers associated with the same Trading Permit Holder firm. This is consistent with the Exchange's current interpretation of this obligation, and the proposed rule change merely codifies it in the Rules to provide additional transparency. This structure conforms to EDGX Rules 22.5 and 22.6.
The proposed rule change adds the following quoting obligations to Rule 8.6, which are the same as obligations in EDGX Rule 22.6:
The proposed size requirement in proposed Rule 8.6(b) is consistent with the firm quote rule, and, as a bid and offer currently cannot have size of zero, the minimum size requirement is consistent with current C2 System functionality.
While there is no explicit requirement in current C2 rules that a Market-Maker must enter two-sided quotes in appointed series like the one in proposed Rule 8.6(c), the continuous quoting obligation requires a continuous two-sided market (see current Rule 8.5(a)(1)) and general obligations require a Market-Maker to, among other things, compete with other Market-Makers in its appointed classes, update quotes in response to changes market conditions, and maintain active markets in its appointed classes (see current Rule 8.5(a)(3) through (5)), which are consistent with the requirement to enter two-sided quotes. Additionally, current C2 System functionality permits Market-Makers to submit two-sided quotes.
Current C2 Rules contain no specific requirement regarding the percentage of a Market-Makers executed volume that must be within their appointed classes. However, such a requirement is consistent with Market-Makers current obligations to maintain continuous two-sided quotes in their appointed classes for a significant part of the trading day, compete in their appointed classes, and update quotes and maintain active markets in their appointed classes.
The Exchange believes these additional explicit requirements in the rules will continue to offset the benefits a Market-Maker receives in its appointed classes, as the proposed Market-Maker requirements are consistent with current C2 Market-maker obligations and observed quoting behavior, and they are the substantively the same as those in the EDGX rules. The Exchange believes having consistent Market-Maker obligations in the C2 and EDGX rules will simplify the regulatory requirements and increase the understanding of the Exchange's operations for Trading Permit Holders that are Market-Makers on both C2 and EDGX.
The proposed rule change combines Rules 8.8 and 8.10 regarding financial requirements and arrangements of Market-Makers into a single Rule 8.8.
Current Rule 8.11 provides the Exchange may impose an upper limit on the aggregate number of Market-Makers that may quote in each product (the “CQL”). Current and proposed Rule 8.1(c) permits the Exchange to limit the number of Market-Makers in a class and monitor quote capacity, in a similar manner as EDGX may impose any such limits.
Currently, there are no Primary Market-Makers (“PMM”) (see Rule 8.13) or Designated Primary Market-Makers (“DPM”) (see Rules 8.14 through 8.21), and C2 does not intend to appoint any PMMs or DPMs in the future. Therefore, the proposed rule change deletes Rules 8.13 through 8.21, as well as the definition of DPM in Rule 1.1. The proposed rule change makes corresponding changes throughout the rules to delete references to those rule numbers and to PMMs and DPMs.
The proposed rule change deletes the supplemental rule (a) to Chapter 4 regarding proxy voting. C2 Chapter 4 incorporates Cboe Options Chapter IV by reference. Recently, Cboe Options adopted Cboe Options Rule 4.25, which is substantively identical to the C2 Chapter 4 supplement rule (a). By virtue of the incorporation by reference of Cboe Options Chapter IV, including Rule 4.25, into C2 Chapter 4, Cboe Options Rule 4.25 applies to C2 Trading Permit Holders pursuant to C2 Chapter 4. Therefore, the supplement rule (a) is now duplicative of Cboe Options Rule 4.25 and is no longer necessary.
The proposed rule change deletes Rule 6.20, which is currently reserved and contains no rule text.
The following rules contain language that the C2 board of directors may make certain trading decisions:
• Rule 6.1, Interpretations and Policies .01 and .02 (proposed to be Rule 6.1(b)), which states the board determines trading hours and Exchange holidays.
• Rule 6.4 states the board will establish minimum quoting increments for options traded on the Exchange.
• Rule 6.33, which permits the board to designate persons other than the CEO or President to halt or suspend trading and take other action if necessary or appropriate for the maintenance of a fair and orderly market or the protection of investors, due to emergency conditions.
• Rule 8.1(c), which permits the board or its designee to limit access to the System, for a period to be determined in the board's discretion, pending any action required to address the issue of concern to the board, and to the extent the board places permanent limitations on access to the System on any Trading Permit Holder, such limits will be objectively determined and submitted to the Commission for approval pursuant to a rule change filing.
These decisions relate to Exchange trading and operations, and thus are made by Exchange management, rather than the Board, which generally is not involved in determinations related to day-to-day operations of the Exchange. Therefore, the proposed rule change modifies these provisions to indicate the Exchange will make these determinations rather than the Board. The Exchange notes pursuant to corresponding EDGX rules, EDGX makes those determinations rather than EDGX's board.
The proposed rule change deletes current Rule 6.38, which requires Trading Permit Holders to file with the Exchange trade information covering each Exchange transaction during a business day. Because all transactions on the Exchange are electronic, as soon as a transaction executes on the Exchange, the Exchange has all of the information indicated in Rule 6.38 and thus does not require Trading Permit Holders to submit a separate report with this information, as that is duplicative. The Exchange notes EDGX does not contain a similar rule.
The proposed rule change deletes Rule 6.41, which states a Trading Permit Holder may not bid, offer, purchase, or write on the Exchange any security other than an option contract currently open for trading in accordance with the
The proposed rule change deletes Rule 6.46 regarding Trading Permit Holder Education, because it is duplicative of Rule 3.13.
Attached as Exhibits 3A, 3B, and 3C are the following updated forms:
• C2 Trading Permit Holder Notification of Designated Give-Ups;
• C2 Give Up Change Form; and
• C2 Give Up Change Form for Accepting Clearing Trading Permit Holders.
These forms relate to the manner in which a Trading Permit Holder may designate Clearing Trading Permit Holder to be a Designated Give Up pursuant to Rule 6.30. The proposed rule change eliminates the term acronym from the forms (as noted above, that term will no longer be used from a system perspective following the technology migration) and makes other nonsubstantive clarifications (such as adding defined terms).
The proposed rule change makes various nonsubstantive changes throughout the rules, in addition to nonsubstantive changes described above, to simplify or clarify rules, delete duplicative rule provisions, conform paragraph numbering and lettering throughout the rules, update Exchange department names, revise chapter and rule names, use plain English (
Chapter 24 incorporates rules in Cboe Options Chapter XXIV by reference, but states certain rules do not apply to C2. One rule that is excluded is Rule 24.17 (RAES Eligibility in Broad-Based Index Options and Options on Exchange Traded funds on Broad Based Indexes). This rule has been deleted from Cboe Options Chapter XXIV, and thus the proposed rule change deletes the reference to that rule in Chapter 24.
Additionally, the proposed rule change moves certain rules within the C2 rulebook as follows:
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The proposed rule changes are generally intended to add or align certain system functionality currently offered by EDGX and other Cboe Affiliated Exchanges in order to provide a consistent technology offering for the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges. A consistent technology offering, in turn, will simplify the technology implementation, changes and maintenance by Users of the Exchange that are also participants on Cboe Affiliated Exchanges. The proposed rule changes would also provide Users with access to functionality that is generally available on markets other than the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges and may result in the efficient execution of such orders and will provide additional flexibility as well as increased functionality to the Exchange's System and its Users. The proposed rule change does not propose to implement new or unique functionality that has not been previously filed with the Commission or is not available on Cboe Affiliated Exchanges. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule text is generally based on EDGX Rules and is different only to the extent necessary to conform to the Exchange's current rules, retain intended differences based on the Exchange's market model, or make other nonsubstantive changes to simplify, clarify, eliminate duplicative language, or make the rule provisions plain English.
To the extent a proposed rule change is based on an existing Cboe Affiliated Exchange rule, the language of Exchange Rules and Cboe Affiliated Exchange rules may differ to extent necessary to conform with existing Exchange rule text or to account for details or descriptions included in the Exchange's Rules but not in the applicable EDGX rule. Where possible, the Exchange has substantively mirrored Cboe Affiliated Exchange rules, because consistent rules will simplify the regulatory requirements and increase the understanding of the Exchange's operations for Trading Permit Holders that are also participants on EDGX. The proposed rule change would provide greater harmonization between the rules of the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, resulting in greater uniformity and less burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance. As such, the proposed rule change would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities and would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. The Exchange also believes that the proposed amendments will contribute to the protection of investors and the public interest by making the Exchange's rules easier to understand. Where necessary, the Exchange has
The proposed order instructions and TIFs not currently available on C2 add functionality currently offered by EDGX in order to provide consistent order handling options across the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges. The proposed rule changes would also provide Users with access to optional functionality that may result in the efficient execution of such orders and will provide additional flexibility as well as increased functionality to the Exchange's System and its Users. As explained above, the proposed functionality is substantially similar to functionality on EDGX, and is optional for Users. The proposed rule change would provide greater harmonization between the order handling instructions available amongst the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, resulting in greater uniformity and less burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance. With respect to the proposed MTP modifier functionality, the Exchange believes the various proposed modifier options would allow firms to better manage order flow and prevent undesirable executions against themselves, and the proposed change described herein enhances the choices available to such firms in how they do so. The proposed rule change also is designed to support the principles of Section 11A(a)(1) of the Act
The proposed rule change to define ports will reduce complexity and increase understanding of the Exchange's operations for all Users of the Exchange following migration. As the ports are the same as used on certain Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, Users of the Exchange and these other exchanges will have access to similar functionality on all Cboe Affiliated exchanges. As such, the proposed rule change will foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities and would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed definition of bulk order entry ports to provide that only Post Only Orders with a time in force of DAY or GTD may be entered, modified, or cancelled through such ports will protect investors and the public interest and maintain fair and orderly markets by offering specific functionality through which Users can submit orders that will result in quotations on the Exchange. In particular, the options markets are quote driven markets dependent on liquidity providers to an even greater extent than equities markets. In contrast to the approximately 7,000 different securities traded in the U.S. equities markets each day, there are more than 500,000 unique, regularly quoted option series. Given this breadth in options series the options markets are more dependent on liquidity providers than equities markets; such liquidity is provided most commonly by registered market makers but also by other professional traders. As such, the Exchange believes maintaining specific functionality to maintain quotations on the Exchange through bulk order entry ports will protect investors and the public interest and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by ensuring that an efficient process to enter and update quotations is available to Exchange Users. The Exchange also believes this is reasonable, as it will establish a marketplace that operates more similar to C2's current market, which is a quote-based market.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to modify the minimum increment for XSP options with those for SPY options perfects the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system because both products are based, in some manner, on 1/10th the price of the S&P 500 Index, and therefore it makes sense to have the same minimum increments of bids and offers for both. This proposed rule change is also substantively the same as a Cboe Options rule, as discussed above.
The proposed Opening Process is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market system because it would align with the EDGX Opening Process as it relates to: Which orders may participate in the process, how the price of the opening transaction is determined; and the process for late openings and re-openings. Conforming the C2 Opening Process to the EDGX opening process will contribute to the protection of investors and the public interest by avoiding investor confusion and providing consistent functionality across Cboe Affiliated Exchanges.
Following the technology migration, orders and quotes will generally be allocated in the same manner as they are today on C2—either pursuant to pro-rata or price-time priority. Deleting other priority overlays that are not used and will not be used on C2 protects investors by eliminating potential confusion regarding which rules apply to trading on C2. The proposed change regarding how the System rounds the number of contracts when they cannot be allocated proportionally in whole numbers pursuant to the pro-rata algorithm (which previously only addressed the situation if there one additional contract for two market participants) and proposed aggregated pro-rata algorithm (which previously was silent on this matter) adds detail to the rules regarding the allocation process and provides a fair, objective manner for rounding and distribution in all situations in which the number of contracts many not be allocated proportionally in whole numbers. Rounding and distributing contracts in the proposed manner is also substantively the same as an EDGX rule, as discussed above.
The Exchange believes that the general provisions regarding the trading of complex orders provide a clear framework for trading of complex orders in a manner consistent with EDGX. This consistency should promote a fair and orderly national options market system. The proposed execution and priority rules will allow complex orders to interact with interest in the Simple Book and, conversely, interest on the Simple Book to interact with complex orders in an efficient and orderly manner. Consistent with C2's current rules and the rules of other exchanges, proposed Rule 6.13(f)(2) will not execute a complex order at a net price ahead of orders on the Simple Book without improving the BBO on at least one component of the complex strategy by at least $0.01. Additionally, before executing against another complex order, a complex order on the Exchange will execute first against orders on the Simple Book if that would result in the best price prior to executing against complex orders on the COB. The complex order priority pursuant to which complex orders will trade against
The Exchange proposes that complex orders may be submitted as limit orders and market orders, and orders with a Time in Force of GTD, IOC, DAY, GTC, or OPG, or as a Complex Only order, COA-eligible or do-not-COA order. In particular, the Exchange believes that limit orders, GTD, IOC, DAY, GTC, and OPG orders all provide valuable limitations on execution price and time that help to protect Exchange participants and investors in both the Simple Book and the COB. In addition, the Exchange believes that offering participants the ability to utilize MTP Modifiers for complex orders in a similar way to the way they are used on the Simple Book provides such participants with the ability to protect themselves from inadvertently matching against their own interest. As discussed above, because complex orders do not route and may not be Post Only, all complex orders are Book Only, which is consistent with current C2 complex order functionality. The proposed rule change also clarifies that Attributable/Non-Attributable instructions are available for complex orders; however, these instructions merely apply to information that is displayed for the orders but do not impact how they execute.
The Exchange believes that permitting complex orders to be entered with these varying order types and modifiers will give the Exchange participants greater control and flexibility over the manner and circumstances in which their orders may be executed, modified, or cancelled, and thus will provide for the protection of investors and contribute to market efficiency.
In particular, the Exchange notes that while both the Complex Only Order and the do-not-COA instruction may reduce execution opportunities for the entering Market-Maker or User, respectively, similar features are already offered by EDGX (and C2 with respect to do-not-COA) in connection with complex order functionality and that they are reasonable limitations a Market-Maker or User, respectively, may wish to include on their order in order to participate on the COB.
Evaluation of the executability of complex orders is central to the removal of impediments to, and the perfection of, the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, the protection of investors and the public interest. The proposed evaluation process pursuant to proposed Rule 6.13(i) ensures that the System will capture and act upon complex orders that are due for execution. The regular and event-driven evaluation process removes potential impediments to the mechanisms of the free and open market and the national market system by ensuring that complex orders are given the best possible chance at execution at the best price, evaluating the availability of complex orders to be handled in a number of ways as described in this proposal. Any potential impediments to the order handling and execution process respecting complex orders are substantially removed due to their continual and event-driven evaluation for subsequent action to be taken by the System. This protects investors and the public interest by ensuring that complex orders in the System are continually monitored and evaluated for potential action(s) to be taken on behalf of investors that submit their complex orders to the Exchange.
If a complex order is not priced equal to, or better than, the SBBO or is not priced to improve other complex orders resting at the top of the COB, the Exchange does not believe that it is reasonable to anticipate that it would generate a meaningful number of COA Responses such that there would be price improvement of the complex order's limit price. Promoting the orderly initiation of COAs is essential to maintaining a fair and orderly market for complex orders; otherwise, the initiation of COAs that are unlikely to result in price improvement could affect the orderliness of the marketplace in general.
The Exchange believes that this removes impediments to and perfects the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system by promoting the orderly initiation of COAs, and by limiting the likelihood of unnecessary COAs that are not expected to result in price improvement.
The Exchange believes the proposed maximum 500 millisecond Response Time Interval promotes just and equitable principles of trade and removes impediments to a free and open market because it allows sufficient time for Trading Permit Holders participating in a COA to submit COA Responses and would encourage competition among participants, thereby enhancing the potential for price improvement for complex orders in the COA to the benefit of investors and public interest. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is not unfairly discriminatory because it establishes a Response Time Interval applicable to all Exchange participants participating in a COA, which is the same maximum Response Time Interval on EDGX.
The Exchange again notes that it has not proposed to limit the frequency of COAs for a complex strategy and could have multiple COAs occurring concurrently with respect to a particular complex strategy. The Exchange represents that it has systems capacity to process multiple overlapping COAs consistent with the proposal, including systems necessary to conduct surveillance of activity occurring in such auctions. Further, EDGX may currently have multiple complex auctions in the same strategy run concurrently. EDGX Rule 21.20, Interpretation and Policy .02 similarly permits multiple complex auctions in the same strategy to run concurrently. The Exchange does not anticipate overlapping auctions necessarily to be a common occurrence, however, after considerable review, believes that such behavior is more fair and reasonable with respect to Trading Permit Holders who submit orders to the COB because the alternative presents other issues to such Trading Permit Holders. Specifically, if the Exchange does not permit overlapping COAs, then a Trading Permit Holder who wishes to submit a COA-eligible order but has its order rejected because another COA is already underway in the complex strategy must either wait for such COA to conclude and re-submit the order to the Exchange (possibly constantly resubmitting the complex order to ensure it is received by the Exchange before another COA commences) or must send the order to another options exchange that accepts complex orders.
The Legging restrictions protects investors and the public interest by ensuring that Market-Makers and other liquidity providers do not trade above their established risk tolerance levels, as described above. Despite the enhanced execution opportunities provided by Legging, the Exchange believes it is reasonable and consistent with the Act to permit Market-Makers to submit orders designated as Complex Only Orders that will not leg into the Simple Book. This is analogous to functionality on EDGX,
Based on the foregoing, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed complex order functionality raises any new or novel concepts under the Act, and instead is consistent with the goals of the Act to remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and to protect investors and the public interest.
The proposed rule change regarding price adjust is consistent with linkage rules that require exchanges to reasonably avoid displaying quotations that lock or cross any Protected Quotation, as well as EDGX Rule 21.1(i). The proposed functionality will assist Users by displaying orders and quotes at permissible prices.
The Exchange believes the additional and enhanced price protection mechanisms and risk controls will protect investors and the public interest and maintain fair and orderly markets by mitigating potential risks associated with market participants entering orders and quotes at unintended prices, and risks associated with orders and quotes trading at prices that are extreme and potentially erroneous, which may likely have resulted from human or operational error. While the Exchange currently offers many similar protections and controls, as described above, the Exchange believes Users will benefit from the additional functionality that will be available following the technology migration. The Exchange notes the proposed rule change does not establish outer boundaries or limits to the levels at which mechanisms can be set. The Exchange believes this is reasonable and necessary to afford the Exchange and Users flexibility to establish and modify the default parameters in order to protect investors and the public interest, and maintain a fair and orderly market. The Exchange notes any Exchange-determined parameters will always be available on C2's website via specification or Notice. The Exchange notes the proposed rule changes related to price protection mechanisms and risk controls are substantially the same as EDGX rules and specifications, as discussed above. The proposed rule change is also similar to current C2 and Cboe Options Rules.
The Exchange believes the proposed additional explicit Market-Maker requirements in the rules will continue to offset the benefits a Market-Maker receives in its appointed classes, as the proposed Market-Maker requirements are consistent with current C2 Market-maker obligations and observed quoting behavior, and they are the substantively the same as Market-Maker requirements in the EDGX rules.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change regarding information to be provided to Users in transaction reports is consistent with current practice and provides market participants with additional transparency regarding these reports. It is also consistent with other Exchange and options industry practices, including the fact that clearing information available through OCC already provides contra-party information as well as the ability of a User on the Exchange to disclose its identify when quoting. The Exchange believes this is consistent with the Act, as it is designed to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities.
The proposed rule change makes various nonsubstantive changes throughout the rules, in addition to nonsubstantive changes described above, will protect investors and benefit market participants, as these changes simplify or clarify rules, delete duplicative rule provisions, conform paragraph numbering and lettering throughout the rules, update Exchange department names, use plain English, and conform language to corresponding EDGX rules.
As described above, the fundamental premise of the proposal is that the Exchange will operate its options market in a similar manner to its affiliated options exchange, EDGX (which as discussed above in the purpose section, is similar in many ways to how C2 currently operates), with the exception of the priority model and certain other limited differences. The basis for the majority of the proposed rule changes in this filing are the approved rules of EDGX, which have already been found to be consistent with the Act. For instance, the Exchange does not believe that any of the proposed order types or order type functionality or allocation and priority provisions raise any new or novel issues that have not previously been considered.
Thus, the Exchange further believes that the functionality that it proposes to offer is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, because the System upon the technology migration is designed to continue to be efficient and its operation transparent, thereby facilitating transactions in securities, removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
Proposed Rule 3.16 (related to Exchange affiliations with Trading Permit Holders) and 3.17 (related to Cboe Trading providing Outbound Router services) are substantially similar to EDGX Rule 2.10 and 2.11. Additionally, proposed Rule 3.16 incorporates the provisions in current C2 Rule 3.2(f) related to restrictions on Exchange affiliations with Trading Permit Holders. As noted above, the provisions related to Exchange affiliations with Trading Permit Holders (including exceptions to any restrictions in the Rules) are consistent with the governing documents of C2. Additionally, the Commission recently approved the Exchange affiliation with Cboe Trading related to its performing inbound routing services for C2. The Exchange believes proposed Rule 3.17 promotes the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, the protection of investors and the public interest, and is in the best interests of the Exchange and its Trading Permit Holders as it will allow the routing of orders to Trading Centers (including affiliated exchanges BZX Options and EDGX Options) from the Exchange in the same manner as certain Cboe-affiliated exchanges currently route orders. Moreover, in meeting the requirements of Rule 3.17 (
C2 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 reiterates that the proposed rule change is being proposed in the context of the technology integration of the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges. Thus, the Exchange believes this proposed rule change is necessary to permit fair competition among national securities exchanges. In addition, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is 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 will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
| 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 |