Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Commodity Credit Corporation
Food Safety and Inspection Service
First Responder Network Authority
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (Gulfstream) Model GVII–G500 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design feature is an electronic flight-control system, the functions of which are dependent upon the airplane's electrical power generation and distribution systems. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
This action is effective on Gulfstream on February 1, 2018. We must receive your comments by March 19, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA–2015–7290 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Nazih Khaouly, FAA, Airplane and Flightcrew Interface Branch, ANM–111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, Washington 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–2432; facsimile 425–227–1320.
The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is unnecessary because the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public-comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On March 29, 2012, Gulfstream applied for a type certificate for their new Model GVII–G500 airplane. This transport-category, twin-engine airplane will be a business jet capable of accommodating up to 19 passengers. The maximum takeoff weight is 91,000 lbs.
Under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Gulfstream must show that the Model GVII–G500 airplane meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25–1 through 25–129.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, Model GVII–G500 airplanes must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. The FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92–574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of
The Model GVII–G500 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:
An electronic flight-control system, the functions of which are dependent upon the electrical power-generation and distribution systems, whereby the loss of all electrical power may be catastrophic to the airplane. These special conditions retain the level of safety offered by 14 CFR 25.1351(d).
The Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVII–G500 airplane incorporates a fly-by-wire flight-control system that requires a continuous source of electrical power to keep the flight-control system operable. The current regulation, § 25.1351(d), Amendment 25–72, “Operation without normal electrical power,” states that the airplane must be operated safely in visual-flight-rules conditions for a period of not less than five minutes after loss of all normal electrical power. This rule was structured around a traditional design of mechanical control cables for flight control that allowed time for the crew to remedy an electrical failure, start the engine(s) if necessary, and re-establish some or all of the electrical power-generation capability.
To maintain the same level of safety associated with traditional designs, the Model GVII–G500 airplane design must not be time limited in its operation when the airplane is without its normal source of engine- or auxiliary-power-unit-generated electrical power. Service experience has shown that the loss of all electrical power generated by an airplane's engine generators or auxiliary power unit (APU) is not extremely improbable. Likewise, regulations require the applicant to demonstrate that the airplane has the power required for continued safe flight and landing with the use of its emergency electrical power systems. These emergency electrical power systems must be able to power all loads considered essential for continued safe flight and landing.
These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Gulfstream Model GVII–G500 airplane. Should Gulfstream apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on one model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the
The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Because the total loss of normal, generated, electrical power in two-engine airplanes is not extremely improbable, and because the loss of all electrical power may be catastrophic to airplanes equipped with an electronic flight-control system, the following special conditions apply to Gulfstream Model GVII airplanes.
In lieu of § 25.1351(d), the following special conditions apply:
1. Gulfstream must show, by test or a combination of test and analysis, that the airplane is capable of continued safe flight and landing with all normal electrical power sources inoperative, as prescribed by paragraphs 1.a. and 1.b., below. For purposes of these special conditions, normal sources of electrical-power generation do not include alternate power sources such as the battery, ram-air turbine, or independent power systems such as the flight-control permanent-magnet generating system. In showing capability for continued safe flight and landing, Gulfstream must account for systems capability, effects on crew workload and operating conditions, and the physiological needs of the flightcrew and passengers for the longest diversion time for which Gulfstream is seeking approval.
a. In showing compliance with this requirement, Gulfstream must account for common-cause failures, cascading failures, and zonal physical threats.
b. Gulfstream may consider the ability to restore operation of portions of the electrical power generation and distribution system if it can be shown that unrecoverable loss of those portions of the system is extremely improbable. The design must provide an alternative source of electrical power for the time required to restore the minimum electrical-power generation capability required for safe flight and landing. Gulfstream may exclude unrecoverable loss of all engines when showing compliance with this requirement.
2. Regardless of electrical-power generation and distribution-system recovery capability shown under special condition 1, above, sufficient electrical-system capability must be provided to:
a. Allow time to descend, with all engines inoperative, at the speed that provides the best glide distance, from the maximum operating altitude to the top of the engine-restart envelope, and
b. Subsequently allow multiple start attempts of the engines and auxiliary power unit (APU). The design must provide this capability in addition to the electrical capability required by existing part 25 requirements related to operation with all engines inoperative.
3. The airplane emergency electrical-power system must be designed to supply:
a. Electrical power required for immediate safety, which must continue to operate without the need for crew action following the loss of the normal electrical power, for a duration sufficient to allow reconfiguration to provide a non-time-limited source of electrical power.
b. Electrical power required for continued safe flight and landing for the maximum diversion time.
4. If the applicant uses APU-generated electrical power to satisfy the requirements of these special conditions, and if reaching a suitable runway for landing is beyond the capacity of the battery systems, then the APU must be able to be started under any foreseeable flight condition prior to the depletion of the battery, or the restoration of normal electrical power, whichever occurs first. Flight test must demonstrate this capability at the most critical condition.
a. The applicant must show that the APU will provide adequate electrical power for continued safe flight and landing.
b. The airplane flight manual (AFM) must incorporate abnormal procedures that direct the pilot to take appropriate actions to activate the APU after loss of normal engine-driven generated electrical power.
5. As part of showing compliance with these special conditions, the tests to demonstrate loss of all normal electrical power must also take into account the following:
a. The assumption that the failure condition occurs during night instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) at the most critical phase of the flight, relative to the worst possible electrical-power distribution and equipment-loads-demand condition.
b. After an unrestorable loss of normal engine-driven generated electrical power, the airplane engine-restart capability is provided and operations are continued in IMC.
c. The airplane is demonstrated to be capable of continued safe flight and landing. The duration of this capability must be computed based on the maximum diversion-time capability for which the airplane is being certified. The applicant must account for airspeed reductions resulting from the associated failure or failures.
d. The airplane must provide adequate indication of loss of normal electrical power to direct the pilot to the abnormal procedures, and the AFM must incorporate abnormal procedures that will direct the pilot to take appropriate actions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class E airspace at Carrabassett, ME, due to the new arrival procedure established for Sugarloaf Regional Airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, March 29, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305–6364.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace at Sugarloaf Regional Airport, Carrabassett, ME, to support IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.11B dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface within the 7-mile radius of Sugarloaf Regional Airport, Carrabassett, ME. A 14.3-mile extension to the north is created, extending from the 7-mile radius of the airport for the new RNAV–(GPS–A) approach for the airport, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations.
The geographic coordinates of the airport are adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (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); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5–6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the earth within a 6-mile radius of the Point in Space Coordinates (lat. 45°06′26″ N, long. 70°12′30″ W) serving the Sugarloaf Regional Airport, and within a 7-mile radius of the airport, and within 1 mile each side of the 346° bearing from the airport, extending from the 7-mile radius to 14.3-miles north of the airport.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Final rule; notice of requirements.
This final rule updates the notice of requirements (NOR) for the accreditation of third party laboratories to assess conformity with the prohibitions of children's toys and child care articles containing specified phthalates. The NOR provides the criteria and process for Commission acceptance of accreditation under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). This rule makes the NOR consistent with the regulated phthalates in children's toys and child care articles in the phthalates final rule published in the
This rule is effective on April 25, 2018. The incorporation by reference of the publication listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register, as of April 25, 2018.
Scott R. Heh, Project Manager, Directorate for Laboratory Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone: 301–504–7646; email:
Section 108 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) established requirements concerning concentration limits for specified phthalates in children's toys and child care articles. In accordance with section 108 of the CPSIA, on October 27, 2017, the Commission published a phthalates final rule (phtahalates rule) in the
On October 27, 2017, in the same issue of the
Section 14(a) of the CPSA requires that products subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other act enforced by the Commission, be certified as complying with all applicable CPSC requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Such certification must be based on a test of each product, or on a reasonable testing program. Products that are subject to a children's product safety rule must be certified based on tests of a sufficient
Because children's toys and child care articles are children's products, samples of these products must be tested by a third party conformity assessment body whose accreditation has been accepted by the Commission. These products also must comply with all other applicable CPSC requirements, such as the lead content requirements of section 101 of the CPSIA, the requirements of the toy standard, 16 CFR part 1250, and the tracking label requirement in section 14(a)(5) of the CPSA.
In accordance with section 14(a)(3)(B)(vi) of the CPSIA, the Commission has previously published two NORs for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies for testing children's toys and child care articles under section 108 of the CPSIA (76 FR 49286 (Aug. 10, 2011), 78 FR 15836 (March 12, 2013)).
As described in the NPR, the Commission will use the following process during the transition period from test method CPSC–CH–C1001–09.3 (2010) to a revised version of the method, test method CPSC–CH–C1001–09.4 (2018). CPSC will accept testing to support children's toys and child care article certifications to the new phthalates prohibitions if the laboratory is already CPSC-accepted to test to CPSC–CH–C1001–09.3 (2010). Laboratories that conduct testing to support product certifications to the new phthalates prohibitions must list in their test reports “16 CFR part 1307” and CPSC–CH–C1001–09.3 until laboratories have transitioned their accreditation scope and CPSC listing to CPSC–CH–C1001–09.4 (2018).
The CPSC will open the laboratory application process for test method CPSC–CH–C1001–09.4 (2018) on the date this final rule is published in the
CPSC will accept testing results to the new phthalates prohibitions in 16 CFR part 1307 from laboratories that are CPSC-accepted to CPSC–CH–C1001–09.3 (2010) for two years from the date of publication of this final rule in the
We received four comments on the NPR. Three comments addressed the DRAFT CPSC procedure CPSC–CH–C1001–09.4 (2017) that was published with the October 2017 NPR briefing package. The first comment requested clarification of the final list of prohibited phthalates. The second comment highlighted “that dissolved PVC-samples can be precipitated by adding hexane. The phthalates remain in solution. The centrifuged solution can then be measured in the GC.” The third comment came from a testing laboratory representative who recommended a few changes to add clarity and more specificity to the CPSC procedure. The fourth comment was outside the scope of the rule.
Staff made editorial clarifications to the DRAFT CPSC procedure based on the comments. Staff revised the test procedure to clarify the final list of eight prohibited phthalates. Also, staff made several additions to the test equipment and supplies section of the test method reflected in test method CPSC–CH–C1001–09.4 (2018) in response to comment.
Staff did not accept some of the commenters' suggested changes to the test method. The revised test method does not add a temperature specification to the sonication reference in the extraction steps because the extraction is not heat dependent. Additionally, the revised test method does not include suggested additional elements to the Table 1 Conditions for Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC–MS). Staff did not make changes to Table 1, as well as other recommended quality assurance changes to the analysis section of the test method, in order to allow accredited laboratories flexibility in setting up their internal standard operating and quality assurance procedures. Adding the suggested requirements to Table 1 might have forced accredited laboratories to alter already suitable quality assurance programs, thus reducing flexibility. The comment relating to use of hexane for PVC samples did not warrant a change to the test method because the test method already permits the use of hexane.
The final rule amends 16 CFR 1112.15(b)(31) introductory text, (b)(31)(i), and (c)(3)(i) to update the references to reflect the promulgation of 16 CFR part 1307 and revised CPSC test method CPSC–CH–C1001–09.4 (2018). CPSC test method CPSC–CH–C1001–09.4 (2018), has, among other things, been updated to reflect the list of phthalates prohibited in children's toys and child care articles in 16 CFR part 1307 (DEHP, DBP, BBP, DNOP, DIBP, DPENP, DHEXP, or DCHP). CPSC test method CPSC–CH–C1001–09.4 (2018) provides detailed information on the test methods that will be used by the CPSC testing laboratory for the analysis of phthalate content in children's toys and child care articles covered by the standard set forth in section 108 of the CPSIA and 16 CFR part 1307. The test method provides detailed information regarding equipment and supplies, the procedure for the measurement of phthalate concentration, sample preparation, the phthalate extraction method, and instrument parameters. The test method CPSC–CH–C1001–09.4 (2018) is substantially the same as the current testing procedure.
The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. Under these regulations, agencies must discuss, in the preamble to the final rule, ways that the materials the agency incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested persons and how interested parties can obtain the materials. In addition, the preamble to the final rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(b).
In accordance with the OFR's requirements, section D of this preamble summarizes CPSC test method CPSC–CH–C1001–09.4 (2018) that the Commission incorporates by reference
The APA generally requires that a substantive rule must be published not less than 30 days before its effective date. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). The NPR proposed a 30-day effective date because the rule allows testing to continue under the existing testing method by testing laboratories that meet certain criteria for a period of up to two years after the publication of a final rule. However, to avoid possible confusion if the effective date for this rule differed from the effective date for the underlying phthalates rule, we are setting the effective date for the rule on April 25, 2018, the same date the phthalates rule takes effect. This is consistent with past practice setting the effective date for NORs for durable nursery products under section 104 of the CPSIA and updates to the mandatory toy standard ASTM F963 on the same date the underlying rule takes effect.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the APA, or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 605. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
The Commission certified, in the NPR, that the rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because the revised testing method is substantially the same as the method that laboratories are already using, qualified testing laboratories should be able to adopt the new method without difficulty, and the 2-year window allowed to amend the accreditation scope documents would allow testing laboratories to time the amendments with their periodic reassessments by their accreditation bodies, which should result in minimal (if any) additional cost. The Commission did not receive any public comments that addressed the potential impact on small entities, nor has the Commission staff become aware of any new information that would change its previous determination regarding the impact on small entities.
The Commission's regulations provide a categorical exclusion for the Commission's rules from any requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement because they “have little or no potential for affecting the human environment.” 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(2). This rule falls within the categorical exclusion, so no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required.
Administrative practice and procedure, Audit, Consumer protection, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Third party conformity assessment body.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission amends title 16 CFR chapter II, as follows:
15 U.S.C. 2063; Pub. L. 110–314, section 3, 122 Stat. 3016, 3017 (2008).
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(31) 16 CFR part 1307, Prohibition of Children's Toys and Child Care Articles Containing Specified Phthalates. For its accreditation to be accepted by the Commission to test for phthalates in children's toys and child care articles, a third party conformity assessment body must have one or more of the following test methods referenced in its statement of scope:
(i) CPSC Test Method CPSC–CH–C1001–09.4, “Standard Operating Procedure for Determination of Phthalates”;
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) CPSC–CH–C1001–9.4, “Standard Operating Procedure for Determination of Phthalates”, January 17, 2018;
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Temporary amendment; temporary scheduling order.
The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is issuing this temporary scheduling order to schedule seven fentanyl-related substances in schedule I. These seven substances are:
This temporary scheduling order is effective February 1, 2018, until February 1, 2020. If this order is extended or made permanent, the DEA will publish a document in the
Michael J. Lewis, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598–6812.
Section 201 of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 811, provides the Attorney General with the authority to temporarily place a substance in schedule I of the CSA for two years without regard to the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 811(b) if he finds that such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). In addition, if proceedings to control a substance are initiated under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), the Attorney General may extend the temporary scheduling
Where the necessary findings are made, a substance may be temporarily scheduled if it is not listed in any other schedule under section 202 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 812, or if there is no exemption or approval in effect for the substance under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 355. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). The Attorney General has delegated scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the DEA. 28 CFR 0.100.
Section 201(h)(4) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), requires the Administrator to notify the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of his intention to temporarily place a substance in schedule I of the CSA.
To find that placing a substance temporarily in schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, the Administrator is required to consider three of the eight factors set forth in section 201(c) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(c): The substance's history and current pattern of abuse; the scope, duration and significance of abuse; and what, if any, risk there is to the public health. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3). Consideration of these factors includes actual abuse, diversion from legitimate channels, and clandestine importation, manufacture, or distribution. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3).
A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling may only be placed in schedule I. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). Substances in schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1).
Available data and information for valeryl fentanyl,
The recreational abuse of fentanyl-related substances continues to be a significant concern. These substances are distributed to users, often with unpredictable outcomes. Evidence suggests that the pattern of abuse of these fentanyl-related substances parallels that of heroin and prescription opioid analgesics. Valeryl fentanyl,
On October 1, 2014, the DEA implemented STARLiMS (a web-based, commercial laboratory information management system) to replace the System to Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence (STRIDE) as its laboratory drug evidence data system of record. DEA laboratory data submitted after September 30, 2014, are reposited in STARLiMS. Data from STRIDE and STARLiMS were queried on November 2, 2017. STARLiMS registered the following reports: valeryl fentanyl (15),
The National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS) is a national drug forensic laboratory reporting system that systematically collects results from drug chemistry analyses conducted by other federal, state and local forensic laboratories across the country. NFLIS was queried on November 3, 2017
Fentanyl-related substances have recently re-emerged on the illicit market (
The identification of valeryl fentanyl,
With no legitimate medical use in the United States, valeryl fentanyl,
Based on information received by the DEA, the misuse and abuse of valeryl fentanyl,
In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3), based on the available data and information, summarized above, the continued uncontrolled manufacture, distribution, reverse distribution, importation, exportation, conduct of research and chemical analysis, possession, and abuse of valeryl fentanyl,
In accordance with the provisions of section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), the Administrator considered available data and information, and herein sets forth the grounds for his determination that it is necessary to temporarily schedule valeryl fentanyl,
Because the Administrator hereby finds it necessary to temporarily place these synthetic opioids in schedule I to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, this temporary order scheduling valeryl fentanyl,
The CSA sets forth specific criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Permanent scheduling actions in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a) are subject to formal rulemaking procedures done “on the record after opportunity for a hearing” conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. 21 U.S.C. 811. The permanent scheduling process of formal rulemaking affords interested parties with appropriate process and the government with any additional relevant information needed to make a determination. Final decisions that conclude the permanent scheduling process of formal rulemaking are subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 877. Temporary scheduling orders are not subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(6).
Upon the effective date of this temporary order, valeryl fentanyl,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), provides for a temporary scheduling action where such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. As provided in this subsection, the Attorney General may, by order, schedule a substance in schedule I on a temporary basis. Such an order may not be issued before the expiration of 30 days from (1) the publication of a notice in the
Inasmuch as section 201(h) of the CSA directs that temporary scheduling actions be issued by order and sets forth the procedures by which such orders are to be issued, the DEA believes that the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) at 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this temporary scheduling action. In the alternative, even assuming that this action might be subject to 5 U.S.C. 553, the Administrator finds that there is good cause to forgo the notice and comment requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553, as any further delays in the process for issuance of temporary scheduling orders would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest in view of the manifest urgency to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.
Further, the DEA believes that this temporary scheduling action is not a “rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 601(2), and, accordingly, is not subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The requirements for the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 603(a) are not applicable where, as here, the DEA is not required by the APA or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking.
Additionally, this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), section 3(f), and, accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. As noted above, this action is an order, not a rule. Accordingly, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) is inapplicable, as it applies only to rules. However, if this were a rule, pursuant to the CRA, “any rule for which an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, shall take effect at such time as the federal agency promulgating the rule determines.” 5 U.S.C. 808(2). It is in the public interest to schedule these substances immediately to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. This temporary scheduling action is taken pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h), which is specifically designed to enable the DEA to act in an expeditious manner to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h) exempts the temporary scheduling order from standard notice and comment rulemaking procedures to ensure that the process moves swiftly. For the same reasons that underlie 21 U.S.C. 811(h), that is, the DEA's need to move quickly to place these substances in schedule I because they pose an imminent hazard to the public safety, it would be contrary to the public interest to delay implementation of the temporary scheduling order. Therefore, this order shall take effect immediately upon its publication. The DEA has submitted a copy of this temporary order to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General, although such filing is not required under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional Review Act), 5 U.S.C. 801–808 because, as noted above, this action is an order, not a rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out above, the DEA amends 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:
21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), 956(b), unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Margate Boulevard/Margate Bridge which carries Margate Boulevard across the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway, Beach Thorofare, mile 74.0, at Margate City, NJ. The deviation is necessary to facilitate bridge maintenance. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.
The deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on Monday, February 26, 2018, through 7 p.m. on Monday, March 12, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG–2018–0033] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Michael Thorogood, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757–398–6557, email
The Ole Hansen and Sons, Inc., owner and operator of the Margate Boulevard/Margate Bridge that carries Margate Boulevard across the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway, Beach Thorofare, mile 74.0, at Margate City, NJ, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating schedule to facilitate maintenance of the structural steel and replacement of the structural steel support column of the double bascule drawbridge. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 14 feet above mean high water in the closed position and unlimited clearance in the open position. The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.5. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be in the closed-to-navigation position between 7 a.m. on February 26, 2018, through 7 p.m. on March 12, 2018.
The Beach Thorofare is used by a variety of vessels including recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with waterway users in publishing this temporary deviation.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternative route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge, so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Final rule.
The Commission adopts a final rule concerning mail preparation changes. This Order amends an existing Commission rule.
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202–789–6820.
In this Order, the Commission adopts a final rule concerning mail preparation changes. The final rule adopted by this Order amends an existing Commission rule located at 39 CFR part 3010.
The Commission is charged with enforcing its price cap rules, which require that the Postal Service make reasonable adjustments to its billing determinants to account for the effects of classification changes such as the introduction, deletion, or redefinition of rate cells.
After setting forth the standard applied to mail preparation requirements, the Commission instituted the present rulemaking “to create rules for the process and timeframes for the regulation of mail preparation requirement changes.”
On January 22, 2016, the Commission published a notice of proposed rulemaking (Initial NPR) that proposed a procedural rule for issues concerning compliance with the price cap rules for mail preparation changes.
The Initial NPR proposed adding a new section under the Commission's existing general motion rule that would create a separate motion procedure dedicated to compliance issues for mail preparation changes.
Although the Initial NPR reiterated the Commission's previous explanation that the “Postal Service has the affirmative burden to determine whether a mail preparation change requires compliance with § 3010.23(d)(2) under the Commission's standard in Order No. 3047,” the initial rule did not propose including a statement of this affirmative burden in the rule.
In proposing the initial rule, the Commission explained that the “primary purpose of the rulemaking is to ensure that the Postal Service properly accounts for the rate effects of mail preparation changes under § 3010.23(d)(2) of this chapter in accordance with the Commission's standard articulated in Order No. 3047.” Order No. 3048 at 1–2. The Commission stated that it also intended to “standardize the procedure and timeframe by which interested parties must file a motion with the Commission when they contend that a mail preparation change has a rate effect requiring compliance with the price cap rules.”
In response to the Initial NPR, the Commission received numerous comments that raised questions about the utility of creating a separate procedural rule for motions concerning mail preparation changes. Commenters submitted concerns over how a separate motion procedure would affect the Commission's authority and responsibility to independently review mail preparations for compliance with the price cap rules.
The Postal Service did not share the concerns of the majority of the commenters. Instead, it suggested adding additional sections to the proposed motion procedure, including discovery, meet and confer requirements, and deadlines for resolving motions.
On March 27, 2017, the Commission issued a revised notice of proposed rulemaking (Revised NPR) which, in response to comments on the Initial NPR, withdrew the initial proposed rule and proposed a revised rule.
The Revised NPR proposed adding a new section to the price cap rules, § 3010.23(d)(5). The revised proposed rule creates a standardized reporting process for mail preparation changes and memorializes the Postal Service's burden to demonstrate compliance with the price cap. Specifically, the revised proposed rule requires that the Postal Service publish notice of all mail preparation changes in a single, publicly available source. Order No. 3827 at 13–14. Under the revised rule, the Postal Service must file notice with the Commission designating the source it will use to provide public notice.
The revisions to the rule were made “to better target the specific goal of ensuring that the Postal Service properly accounts for mail preparation requirement changes under § 3010.23(d)(2).”
The Postal Service, the Public Representative, the Association for Postal Commerce (PostCom), and the National Postal Policy Council, the National Association of Presort Mailers, and the Association for Mail Electronic Enhancement (collectively NPPC
In this section, parts of the revised proposed rule that will be finalized are identified, briefly outlined, and comments or issues relating to the rule are discussed and analyzed.
The rule sets forth a requirement that the Postal Service publish notice of all mail preparation changes in a single, publicly available source.
In response to both the Initial and Revised NPR, commenters generally expressed concern that it is difficult to monitor the multiple sources used by the Postal Service to provide notice of mail preparation changes.
In their comments to the Initial NPR, NPPC
In its comments to the Initial NPR, PostCom proposed directing “the Postal Service to identify a publication in which all mail preparation changes will be published.”
With respect to PostCom's concern that the Postal Service may attempt to avoid price cap compliance by failing to classify a change as a mail preparation change and, as a result, fail to provide the requisite notice, the Commission submits that its existing procedures provide adequate recourse to deal with any issues concerning challenges to changes that are not properly designated or published in the specified source. Therefore, the Commission declines to adopt PostCom's suggested change in the final rule.
In comments to the Initial NPR, the Public Representative supported requiring the Postal Service file notice of mail preparation changes in a single source.
With respect to the publication requirement, the Postal Service contends that the “Commission should decline to adopt the proposed `single source' publication requirement.” Postal Service Comments at 27. It states that it is “unclear what procedural purpose would be served by these new requirements” and that it “already has strong business incentives to provide advance notice of upcoming changes, to help ensure that mailers can and will comply with any new requirements in a timely manner.”
In response to the Postal Service's question regarding the purpose of the single source publication requirement, the rule will provide standardized, transparent reporting of mail preparation changes to ensure compliance with the price cap rules. This information will enable the Commission and the mailing community to properly monitor the changes to mail preparation
As previously stated, the Postal Service provides notice of changes to mail preparation requirements in many different sources including the “
Accordingly, the Commission finds it appropriate to maintain the publication requirement in the final rule, with the slight modification described above, because it will provide important notice to both the mailers and the Commission of mail preparation changes that could potentially implicate the price cap.
In addition to publication in a single source, the rule requires the Postal Service to affirmatively designate whether or not the individual mail preparation change requires compliance with § 3010.23(d)(2). Although the Commission did not receive comments specific to this revised affirmative designation requirement in response to the Revised NPR, a similar requirement was proposed in the Initial NPR. The initial rule proposed requiring an affirmative designation for only those instances where the mail preparation change required compliance with the price cap rules. Comments received on that provision requested that the Commission modify the requirement to include an affirmative statement of whether
As it remains the Postal Service's obligation to review all of its mail preparation changes for compliance with § 3010.23(d)(2), the rule maintains the requirement that the Postal Service provide an affirmative statement of its determination for each mail preparation change that it does or does not require compliance with § 3010.23(d)(2).
In addition to the publication requirement, the rule provides that, “[i]f raised by the Commission or challenged by a mailer, the Postal Service must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a mail preparation change does not require compliance with paragraph (d)(2) of this section in any proceeding where compliance is at issue.” Order No. 3827 at 13–14.
In response to the Revised NPR, NPPC
The Postal Service objects to the evidentiary burden provision and submits that the burden of proof should be placed on the “proponent that asserts that a particular mail preparation change constitutes a change in rates because it redefines a price cell.” Postal Service Comments at 2, 15–16. It states that “[i]f the Commission nonetheless decides to place the burden of proof on the Postal Service, the Postal Service will need to develop a process for obtaining cost information from potentially impacted mailers in order to determine the amount of compliance costs that a given change might impose on the mailing community.”
The Postal Service also claims that the evidentiary burden provision is unfair based on its pending appeal of the underlying substantive standard applying § 3010.23(d)(2) to mail preparation changes.
The Postal Service claims that its complaints regarding confusion over application of the standard are relevant to the evidentiary standard set forth in the current rulemaking because it is confused over “what, exactly, it is asking the Postal Service to prove.”
In response to the Postal Service's concerns over the evidentiary standard, the Commission submits that the evidentiary burden in the final rule is the same burden that has existed throughout the PAEA era. It is the Postal Service's responsibility to “apply a good faith analysis to make the preliminary determination of whether a mail preparation requirement change will result in either the deletion or redefinition of a rate cell.” Order No. 3047 at 20. If it determines that a mail preparation “change has deleted or redefined a rate cell then it must comply
In response to the Postal Service's contention that the Commission's failure to explain its standard and how it is to be applied to future cases should prevent the rulemaking from moving forward, the Commission points to its responses to the Postal Service's arguments concerning the substantive standard in Order Nos. 3047 and 3441. In Order No. 3441, the Commission explained:
Although the Postal Service claims that the Commission “fail[ed] to respond” to the Court's holding that the Commission must explain its standard, the Commission provided a detailed explanation of the standard, parameters of the standard, and application of the standard. Order No. 3047 at 13–31. The Commission cannot provide explanation of abstract hypothetical changes the Postal Service may make in the future, as those issues and facts are not currently before the Commission. However, despite the fact that this standard is to be applied on a case-by-case basis, the Commission provided an explanation of how the standard would be applied, and set forth the parameters of such application so that the Postal Service and interested parties would have sufficient guidance in the future.
The Commission has previously declined the Postal Service's motion to suspend this rulemaking proceeding pending resolution of the Postal Service's Petition for Review before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Postal Service also points to Order No. 3827, the Revised NPR, and contends that statements made in that order contradict the Commission's standard set forth in Order No. 3047. The Postal Service submits that the Commission, in Order No. 3827, “maintains that a mail preparation change is subject to the price cap when it functionally `eliminates' a rate.” Postal Service Comments at 20. It claims that this statement contradicts the Commission's position on appeal and contends that “the Commission's brief in the DC Circuit acknowledged that the elimination of a rate does not address whether mailers will be forced to pay higher prices.”
Moreover, if the Postal Service is unsure how to apply § 3010.23(d)(2) to a mail preparation change in order to determine whether the price cap applies, it may file a motion with the Commission. As discussed in more detail below,
With respect to the Postal Service's concern that the lack of discovery will prevent it from satisfying its burden of proof, the Commission responds that discovery is always available in Commission proceedings where it is “reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence during a proceeding.”
However, the Commission agrees with the Postal Service's suggestion that the rule also codify the requirement that a “challenging party should provide relevant evidence to rebut the Postal Service's initial determination that the price cap does not apply.” Postal Service Comments at 18. Parties requesting relief before the Commission based on the Postal Service's action or inaction must always provide the requisite support for their position. In addition to the rules prescribed for specific proceedings, § 3001.11 of this chapter provides that the necessary contents of documents that do not pertain to a specific rule, regulation, or Commission Order.
The Public Representative also suggests a slight modification to the last sentence of the proposed rule to clarify that “raised by the Commission” is intended to cover situations where the Commission independently questions the Postal Service's compliance with § 3010.23(d)(2). PR Comments at 7. The Commission avers that the word “raised” appropriately covers all situations where compliance issues for mail preparation changes may be questioned by the Commission. However, the Commission makes a slight modification to apply the term “raised” to challenges by the Commission or any other party in order to simplify the language in the rule. Accordingly, final rule § 3010.23(d)(5) incorporates the slight modifications described.
As explained above, the final rule creates a process where the Postal Service will be required to provide published notice of all mail preparation changes in a single source with a designation of whether or not each change requires compliance with § 3010.23(d)(2). The rule also memorializes the Postal Service's burden to demonstrate compliance with the price cap rules for any issues arising from its designation of a mail preparation change. The rule does not create a separate motion procedure for issues concerning mail preparation changes as originally contemplated. The Commission analyzes and responds to comments relevant to the withdrawal of the motion procedure.
NPPC
As noted by the Public Representative, by withdrawing the motion procedure and associated filing deadline, the revised rule “permits interested persons to challenge at any time a Postal Service's decision that a mail preparation change is not a rate change.” PR Comments at 6. He concludes that the rule will “close a potentially significant regulatory gap in the original proposal” by “providing for a method to sufficiently alert the Commission and other interested parties about mail preparation changes.”
The Postal Service seeks to have the Commission reinstate the initial proposed motion rule with modifications. Postal Service Comments at 2. Specifically, the Postal Service requests that the Commission reinstate:
[T]he 30-day filing deadline for motions challenging the Postal Service's initial determination that a mail preparation change does not implicate the price cap, adopt the additional procedural provisions requested by the Postal Service in its initial Comments, and place the burden of proving `significant' mailer costs on the proponent that asserts that a particular mail preparation change constitutes a change in rates because it redefines a price cell.
The Postal Service contends that, without a separate procedure specific to mail preparation changes, it “must rely on impacted mailers to come forward with evidence concerning the extent of compliance costs that a mail preparation change will impose, and without any defined process to insure that they do so accurately and completely.”
The Postal Service claims that the Commission revised the proposed rule “without meaningful explanation,” yet it also acknowledges that the Commission explained that “its existing procedures `should be sufficient to raise issues of price cap compliance for mail preparation changes,' that creating additional procedures would be `redundant,' and that the revised proposed rule is meant `to better target the specific goal of ensuring that the Postal Service properly accounts for mail preparation requirement changes under § 3010.23(d)(2).' ”
The Postal Service also claims that the revised rule “strips the rule of its critical procedural protection: the 30-day filing deadline.”
In response to the Postal Service's comments, the Commission declines to create a separate motion procedure for mail preparation changes because “existing procedures available to interested parties should be sufficient to raise issues of price cap compliance for mail preparation changes.” Order No. 3827 at 10. As the Commission previously explained:
Mailers may notify the Commission using the general motion procedures set forth in § 3001.21 of this chapter if they disagree with the Postal Service's determination of compliance with § 3010.23(d)(2). The rules under § 3001.21 of this chapter require motions to “set forth with particularity the ruling or relief sought, the grounds and basis therefore, and the statutory or other authority relied upon . . .” Accordingly, any motions filed under § 3001.21 of this chapter concerning mail preparation changes shall provide all information the mailers have to rebut the Postal Service's determination, consistent with the Commission's standard set forth in Order No. 3047.
In response to the Postal Service's concern that it would be subject to late objections to its determination that a change does not impact the price cap, the Postal Service may file a motion with the Commission and “seek a determination from the Commission [on the price cap impact of the change] using the procedures set forth under § 3001.21 of this chapter prior to implementation of the change.”
In response to the Postal Service's contention that the revised rule ignores
In addition to potential redundancies, the Commission also found that a separate motion rule would conflict with existing procedures.
1. Part 3010 of title 39, Code of Federal Regulations, is revised as set forth below the signature of this order, effective 30 days after publication in the
2. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission amends chapter III of title 39 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
39 U.S.C. 503; 3662.
(d) * * *
(5)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions, which Illinois submitted to EPA on March 2, 2016, and supplemented on August 8, 2016 and May 4, 2017, for attaining the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO
This final rule is effective on March 5, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0138. All documents in the docket are listed on the
John Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6067,
This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
On October 5, 2017, at 82 FR 46434, EPA proposed to approve Illinois' nonattainment plans for the Lemont and Pekin SO
EPA's proposed rulemaking provides further background on Illinois' submittal. Within the body of this proposed rulemaking, the first section identified EPA's action designating the Lemont and Pekin areas as nonattainment, thereby triggering a requirement for Illinois to develop nonattainment plans for the areas.
The second section of the proposal provided an extensive discussion of EPA's guidance on the requirements that SO
The third section of the proposed rulemaking discussed EPA's review of Illinois' demonstration that its plans provide for attainment in the Lemont and Pekin areas. This section discussed the use of the atmospheric dispersion model known as AERMOD, the meteorological and emissions data used in the analysis, the emission limits that Illinois relied on, and the background concentrations that Illinois used. This included a discussion of Illinois' use of a 30-day average emission limit for the Powerton Generating Station (Powerton), operated by Midwest Generation, LLC, which is located in the Pekin area. Illinois set this limit at a level of about 58 percent of the level of the 1-hour limit that Illinois found would have provided for attainment, and which Illinois supplemented with a requirement that Powerton have less than five percent of the hours in any 30-day period exceeding the 1-hour emission limit that Illinois otherwise would have set. EPA also evaluated comments that Sierra Club submitted during the State's rulemaking process, including comments related to the proposed emission limit for Powerton. Finally, this section summarized EPA's review of Illinois' attainment demonstration, concluding that Illinois' proposed limit for Powerton, as supplemented, was comparably stringent to the 1-hour limit that would have been necessary to provide for attainment in accordance with EPA's guidance, and finding more generally that Illinois adequately demonstrated that its plans provided for attainment.
The fourth section of the proposal contained EPA's review of the rules Illinois adopted to limit the sulfur content of residual and distillate fuel oil, and EPA's conclusion that these limits were enforceable and approvable.
The fifth section of the proposal explained how Illinois' plans satisfied other nonattainment planning requirements, including requirements for a comprehensive emission inventory, RACM/RACT, an adequate new source review program, RFP, and contingency measures.
The sixth section of the proposal summarized EPA's proposed action, namely that EPA proposed to approve Illinois' plans and the emission limits in the underlying rules.
The seventh section of the proposal identified the rules that EPA was proposing to approve, and the eighth section contained EPA's review of statutory requirements and executive orders applicable to the proposed rulemaking.
In response to the proposed rulemaking, EPA received one comment letter, from Midwest Generation, LLC, dated November 6, 2017. The commenter indicated that it supports EPA's proposed rulemaking, provided SO
These comments, which support EPA's action, do not require any reassessment of the proposed rulemaking. Additionally, the proposed action did not address whether the Lemont and Pekin areas (at the monitoring sites and elsewhere) are currently attaining the SO
EPA is taking final action to approve Illinois' submission as a SIP revision, which the state submitted to EPA on March 2, 2016, and supplemented on August 8, 2016, and May 4, 2017, for attaining the 2010 1-hour SO
These SO
These limits include a 30-day average limit for the Powerton power plant in the Pekin area. Illinois' modeling demonstrated that a 1-hour limit of 6,000 pounds of SO
These nonattainment plans also satisfy requirements for emission inventories, RACT/RACM, RFP, and contingency measures. Additionally, Illinois has previously addressed requirements regarding nonattainment area new source review. Therefore, EPA has determined that Illinois' SO
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Illinois Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 2, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving elements of a state implementation plan (SIP) submission from Indiana regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2012 fine particulate matter (PM
This final rule is effective on March 5, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0343. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Eric Svingen, Environmental Engineer, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–4489,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
This rulemaking addresses a June 10, 2016, submission from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) intended to address all applicable infrastructure requirements for the 2012 PM
Under section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their SIPs provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, including the 2012 PM
EPA highlighted this statutory requirement in an October 2, 2007, guidance document entitled “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM
EPA is acting upon the SIP submission from Indiana that addresses the infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2012 PM
EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as SIP submissions that address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D and the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, and “regional haze SIP” submissions required to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A.
In this rulemaking, EPA will not take action on three substantive areas of section 110(a)(2): (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction (“SSM”) at sources, that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that purport to permit revisions to SIP approved emissions limits with limited public notice or without requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA; and, (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31,
On August 31, 2017 (82 FR 41379), EPA proposed to approve the above-cited elements of Indiana's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 PM
EPA is taking final action to approve most elements of a submission from Indiana certifying that its current SIP is sufficient to meet the required infrastructure elements under section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2012 PM
In the above table, the key is as follows:
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 2, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to re-approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Montana. On September 19, 2016, the Governor of Montana submitted to the EPA a Clean Air Act (CAA) section 175A(b) second 10-year maintenance plan for the Missoula, Montana area for the carbon monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This limited maintenance plan (LMP) addresses maintenance of the CO NAAQS for a second 10-year period beyond the original redesignation. This action is being taken under sections 110 and 175A of the CAA.
Effective February 1, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0339. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Adam Clark, (303) 312–7104,
The factual background for this action is discussed in detail in our September 14, 2017 direct final rule (DFR) and proposal (82 FR 43180, 82 FR 43208) approving the revised Missoula Maintenance Plan into the Montana SIP. The EPA received one adverse comment on the rulemaking and attempted to withdraw the DFR prior to the effective date of November 13, 2017. However, the EPA inadvertently did not withdraw the DFR prior to that date and the rule became prematurely effective on November 13, 2017, revising the Montana SIP to reflect the approval of the revised Missoula Maintenance Plan. In this final rulemaking, the EPA is responding to the comments submitted on the proposed revision to the Montana SIP, and is re-approving the revised Missoula Maintenance Plan into the Montana SIP. The background information found in the DFR is still relevant and our September 14, 2017 proposal provides the basis for this final action.
The EPA finds that there is good cause under section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to make this action re-approving the revisions to the Montana SIP effective upon publication in the
The EPA received two anonymous public comments, one which we considered adverse, on our action to approve Montana's September 19, 2016 SIP submittal. Below is a summary of each comment and the EPA's response.
The EPA is re-approving the revised Missoula Maintenance Plan submitted on September 19, 2016. This maintenance plan meets the applicable CAA requirements, and we have determined it is sufficient to provide for maintenance of the 8-hour CO NAAQS over the course of the second 10-year maintenance period out to 2027. This rule, which responds to the adverse comment received, finalizes our proposed approval of the revised section of Montana's SIP.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state actions, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves some state law provisions as meeting federal requirements; this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP does not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 2, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(d) Revisions to the Montana State Implementation Plan, revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Missoula, as submitted by the Governor on September 19, 2016 (as approved by the EPA on February 1, 2018).
Environmental Protection Agency.
Correcting amendments.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a document in the
This final rule correction is effective on February 1, 2018.
Ammie Roseman-Orr, Environmental Appeals Board, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, William Jefferson Clinton Building East, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Mail Code 1103M, Washington DC 20460–0001, phone number (202) 233–0122 or by email at
Today's final rule is limited to correcting a mistake to procedural requirements for administrative adjudicatory hearings and appeals from such hearings and from permit decisions. As an amendment to a procedural rule, this final rule itself is a procedural rule. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an agency may issue “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” without first proposing such rules for public comment. 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Accordingly, public comment is not required.
In addition, EPA has determined that this rule is effective immediately upon publication in the
This action affects parties involved in EPA administrative adjudicatory proceedings for the assessment of civil penalties, issuance of various compliance orders, and termination or suspension of certain permits, under part 22 of title 40 of the CFR. See 40 CFR 22.1. This action also affects parties involved in appeal of EPA permits under part 124 of title 40 of the CFR.
The rule document published on January 9, 2017 (82 FR 2230), revised the filing and service procedures used in permit appeals to the Environmental Appeals Board. The EPA also revised 40 CFR 124.19(b)(1) and (2) so that the deadlines for filing a response to a petition for review are based on the date the petition for review is served, rather than the date it is filed. Subsections (3) and (4) were intended to remain unchanged but were inadvertently removed from the rule.
Additionally, in § 124.19(i)(2)(iii), the address for delivery by hand or courier to the Environmental Appeals Board incorrectly identifies the room number as 3334 when the actual room number is 3332 and language regarding methods of delivery by hand or courier was inadvertently omitted.
Finally, the language in § 124.19(i)(3)(ii) revising the service requirements to allow for service by email inadvertently contains an extra “or” that does not belong so that this provision of the rule now reads: “Service must be by first class U.S. mail, by any reliable commercial delivery service, or, if agreed to by the parties, by facsimile or other electronic means, including but not necessarily limited to or email.” Removal of the last “or” will make the sentence clearer.
As published on January 9, 2017 (82 FR 2230), the final regulation contains an error that resulted in the inadvertent removal of two procedural provisions that govern the participation of permit applicants, State, and Tribal Authorities in permit proceedings before the Environmental Appeals Board. The absence of these provisions may result in confusion to parties and inefficiencies in the appeals process and thus these provisions need to be reinstated. Additionally, revising the Environmental Appeals Board's address for delivery by hand or courier in § 124.19(i)(2)(iii) to reflect the correct room number and to include methods of delivery by hand or courier will avoid potential confusion. Finally, the superfluous “or” in the third sentence of § 124.19(i)(3)(ii) is confusing. Removal of that word will not change the meaning of the sentence and will make the provision clearer.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures.
Accordingly, 40 CFR part 124 is corrected as follows:
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901
The addition and revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(3) A permit applicant who did not file a petition but who wishes to participate in the appeal process must file a notice of appearance and a response to the petition. Such documents must be filed by the deadlines provided in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section, as appropriate.
(4) The State or Tribal authority where the permitted facility or site is or is proposed to be located (if that authority is not the permit issuer) must also file a notice of appearance and a response if it wishes to participate in the appeal. Such response must be filed by the deadlines provided in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section, as appropriate.
(i) * * *
(2)
(iii)
(3) * * *
(ii)
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Inflation Adjustment Act) requires the Federal Communications Commission to amend its forfeiture penalty rules to reflect annual adjustments for inflation in order to improve their effectiveness and maintain their deterrent effect. The 2015 Inflation Adjustment Act provides that the new penalty levels shall apply to penalties assessed after the effective date of the increase, including when the penalties whose associated violation predate the increase.
Effective February 1, 2018.
Lisa Gelb, Enforcement Bureau, 202–418–1479.
This is a summary of the Commission's Order, DA 18–12, adopted and released on January 5, 2018. The document is available for download at
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 included, as Section 701 thereto, the 2015 Inflation Adjustment Act, which amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101–410), to improve the effectiveness of civil monetary penalties and maintain their deterrent effect. Under the act, agencies are required to make annual inflationary adjustments by January 15 each year. The adjustments are calculated pursuant to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance. OMB issued guidance on December 15, 2017, and this Order follows that guidance. We therefore update the civil monetary penalties set forth in the Commission's rules, to reflect an annual inflation adjustment that derives from OMB's cost-of-living multiplier of 1.02041.
This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198,
The Commission will send a copy of this Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 1 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 34–39, 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 303, 309, 310, 332, 1403, 1404, 1451, 1452, 1455; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
(b) * * *
(8) * * *
Note to paragraph (b)(8) * * *
Section III. Non-Section 503 Forfeitures That Are Affected by the Downward Adjustment Factors
(9)
(ii) The application of the annual inflation adjustment required by the foregoing Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 results in the following adjusted statutory maximum forfeitures authorized by the Communications Act:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS is implementing regulations to open a 2018 February recreational season in the Federal black sea bass fishery. This action provides additional recreational fishing opportunities in winter, while maintaining management measures to prevent overfishing consistent with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan. This rule is intended to inform the public of this new 2018 recreational season.
Effective February 1 through February 28, 2018.
Copies of the Environmental Assessment (EA), Regulatory Flexibility Act Analyses, and other supporting documents for the action are available upon request from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 N. State Street, Dover, DE 19901.
Cynthia Hanson, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281–9180.
Black sea bass are jointly managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) as part of the joint Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP). States manage black sea bass within 3 nautical miles (4.83 km) of their coasts under the Commission's plan. The applicable Federal regulations govern vessels and individual anglers fishing in Federal waters of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), as well as vessels possessing a Federal black sea bass charter/party vessel permit, regardless of where they fish. This rule applies to black sea bass (
This action implements the addition of a Federal recreational black sea bass fishing season during February of 2018. Additional background information regarding the development of this action was provided in the proposed rule (83 FR 780; January 8, 2018) and is not repeated here. The Federal recreational measures for the remainder of 2018 are still in development and will be implemented through a separate rulemaking later this spring.
This action implements a 28-day winter season for the 2018 recreational black sea bass fishery during the month of February. The current black sea bass recreational management measures of a 12.5-inch (31.75-cm) minimum size and 15-fish possession limit still apply during this February season. As explained in the proposed rule, this action responds to the favorable 2016 benchmark stock assessment for black sea bass, and is intended to increase recreational fishing access to a stable stock at a time of year when few other recreational species are available.
Two states, North Carolina and Virginia, have formally declared their intent to participate in the February 2018 recreational season. To confirm their participation, both states
Commission-based measures implemented by states may vary by state, and differ from the Federal water measures. Because only Virginia and North Carolina have committed to participate in this winter season, the fishery will only be open for these states. Federal permit holders are required to adhere to the more restrictive set of measures irrespective of whether the vessel is fishing in state or Federal waters. Similarly, private anglers must adhere to the recreational measures implemented by the state in which the fish will be landed as all the state-implemented measures place restrictions on season, minimum fish size, and per-angler possession limit. For additional information on state-implemented management measures, please contact the marine fisheries management agency for the state in question or the Commission (
The public comment period for the proposed rule ended on January 23, 2018. Thirteen comments were received from the public on this rule. Many of the comments expressed similar concerns.
There are no changes from the proposed rule.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This final rule does not duplicate, conflict, or overlap with any existing Federal rules.
This action does not contain a collection of information requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay of effectiveness period for this rule, to ensure that the action is in place on or about February 1, 2018. This action implements an additional Federal black sea bass recreational season during February 2018. A delay in its
Furthermore, regulated parties do not require any additional time to come into compliance with this rule. Unlike actions that require an adjustment period, charter/party operators will not have to purchase new equipment or otherwise expend time or money to comply with these management measures. Rather, complying with this final rule simply means adhering to the existing management measures for black sea bass while the charter/party operators are engaged in fishing activities during the new open season. This action has been discussed at multiple Council and Commission public meetings throughout its development and is expected by the recreational fishing sector.
This rule is being issued at the earliest possible date. Preparation of the proposed rule was dependent on completion of the EA in support of the recommendations developed by the Council and Commission. Documentation in support of the Council's recommended specifications is required for us to provide the public with information from the environmental and economic analyses, as required in rulemaking, and to evaluate the consistency of the Council's recommendation with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. The Council's decision to recommend a February season was not final until December 13, 2017, and a complete document was finalized in late December 2017. Due to this tight timeline, we were unable to prepare this action early enough to allow for both an appropriate public comment period and a 30-day delay in effectiveness. The proposed rule published on January 8, 2018, with a 15-day comment period ending January 23, 2018. This action creates an additional Federal recreational season for black sea bass and increases fishing opportunity and access in the winter that would otherwise be constrained under the current seasons. If this final rule were delayed for 30 days, the proposed 28-day recreational season would be severely shortened or may not become effective at all. This would diminish any opportunity created by opening a winter season, and would be contrary to the purpose of the action. For these reasons, a 30-day delay in effectiveness would be contrary to the public interest and is therefore waived.
The final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) included in this final rule was prepared pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 604(a), and incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a summary of analyses completed to support the action. A public copy of the environmental assessment/IRFA is available from the Council (see
NMFS received one comment on the RFA process in general, stating that RFA regulations need to be updated and the small business community needs to be afforded more inclusion in policy discussions during their development. However, this comment did not raise specific issues regarding the proposed rule or the economic analyses summarized in the IRFA. Refer to the “Comments and Responses” section of this preamble for more detail. No changes to the proposed rule are necessary as a result of the public comments.
This final rule affects small entities engaged in recreational fish harvesting operations within the black sea bass fishery. For the purposes of the RFA analysis, the ownership entities (or firms), not the individual vessels, are considered to be the regulated entities. Individually permitted vessels may hold permits for several fisheries, harvesting species of fish that are regulated by several different FMPs, even beyond those affected by this action. Furthermore, multiple-permitted vessels and/or permits may be owned by entities affiliated by stock ownership, common management, identity of interest, contractual relationships, or economic dependency. Because of this, some individually permitted vessels may be part of the same firm because they have the same owner for the purpose of this analysis.
In terms of the RFA, a business primarily engaged in for-hire fishing activity is classified as a small business if it has combined annual receipts not in excess of $7.5 million. The current ownership data set used for this analysis is based on calendar year 2016 (the most recent complete year available) and contains average gross sales associated with those permits for calendar years 2014 through 2016. According to the ownership database, there were 406 for-hire permits that generated revenues from recreational fishing for various species during the 2014–2016 period. Of these permits, there were 328 that were not affiliated with any other ownership group. The remaining 78 for-hire vessels were comprised of affiliated ownership groups with between two and six for-hire vessels for a total of 359 for-hire affiliate firms; all of which are categorized as small businesses. Although it is not possible to derive what proportion of the overall revenues came from specific fishing activities, further analysis conducted by the Council and NMFS during the development of this action identified that in 2016 there were 291 for-hire entities that recreationally caught black sea bass. In 2013, the last year that a recreational black sea bass fishery was open in January and February, 331 for-hire firms caught black sea bass recreationally; however, only 39 of those were active during the Wave 1 (January and February) period. While these are the best available estimates of potential participation in the February season implemented by this action, these numbers are not necessarily indicative of the number of entities that will actually participate. Overall, participation is expected to be low as only Virginia and North Carolina declared into the fishery, and general comments on the proposed rule suggest that businesses are primarily promoting and planning for the busier summer and fall seasons.
No additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements are included in this final rule.
NMFS is implementing the Council-recommended final rule to open a February recreational season in the 2018 black sea bass fishery to satisfy the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements to ensure that fish stocks are not subject to overfishing, while allowing the greatest access to the fishery, and opportunity to
As described in the proposed rule for this action, two other alternatives to the approved action were considered. Maintaining the status quo with no winter fishing did not take advantage of the favorable stock status or provide any additional access or opportunity in the recreational black sea bass fishery. Opening the fishery for both January and February could have created more recreational fishing opportunity in 2018; however, given the lack of recreational data available, the time constraints involved, and the potential disproportionate impacts to state recreational fisheries later in the year, this alternative was not selected. The action described in this final rule was chosen as the best feasible way to increase recreational fishing opportunity in the black sea bass fishery in 2018 with the lowest potential negative impact.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a letter to permit holders that also serves as small entity compliance guide was prepared and will be sent to all holders of Federal charter/party permits issued for the black sea bass fishery. In addition, copies of this final rule and guide (
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
Vessels that are not eligible for a moratorium permit under § 648.4(a)(7), and fishermen subject to the possession limit specified in § 648.145(a), may only possess black sea bass from February 1 through February 28, May 15 through September 21, and October 22 through December 31, unless this time period is adjusted pursuant to the procedures in § 648.142.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Textron Aviation Inc. Models 172N, 172P, 172Q, 172RG, F172N, F172P, FR172K, R172K, 182E, 182F, 182G, 182H, 182J, 182K, 182L, 182M, 182N, 182P, 182Q, 182R, T182, F182P, F182Q, F182RG, R182, TR182, 206, P206/TP206, U206/TU206, 207/T207, 210–5 (205), 210–5A (205A), 210B, 210C, 210D, 210E, 210F, and T210F airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of cracks found in the lower area of the forward cabin doorpost bulkhead. This proposed AD would require repetitively inspecting the lower forward doorpost at the strut attach fitting for cracks and making all necessary repairs. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 19, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Textron Aviation Inc., Textron Aviation Customer Service, One Cessna Blvd., Wichita, Kansas 67215; telephone: (316) 517–5800; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Bobbie Kroetch, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO Branch, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946–4155; fax: (316) 946–4107; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We received a report from an operator of one of the affected Textron Aviation Inc. model airplanes that cracks were found in the lower area of the forward cabin doorpost bulkhead. Further investigation revealed more than four dozen similar cracks on Textron Aviation Inc. 100 and 200 airplanes. It has been determined that the cracks result from metal fatigue.
This condition, if not detected and addressed, could result in failure of the wing strut attach point during operation, which could result in loss of control.
We reviewed Cessna Single Engine Accomplishment Instructions SEB95–19, dated December 29, 1995; and Cessna Single-Engine Accomplishment Instructions SEB93–5R1, Revision 1, dated September 8, 1995. As applicable, the service information describes procedures for repetitively inspecting the lower area of the forward cabin doorposts for cracks and repairing any cracks found by modifying the area with the applicable Cessna service kit. 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 reviewed Cessna Single Engine Service Bulletin SEB93–5, Revision 1, dated September 8, 1995, and Cessna Single Engine Service Bulletin SEB95–19, dated December 29, 1995. As applicable, these service bulletins provide the manufacturer's recommended compliance times for the initial and repetitive inspections.
These service bulletins also specify a terminating action for the repetitive inspections when the applicable Cessna repair service kit is installed if cracks are found.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or
This proposed AD would require repetitively inspecting the lower area of the forward cabin doorposts for cracks and repairing any cracks found by modifying the area with the applicable Cessna service kit.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 14,653 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this repair:
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 small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by March 19, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to the following Textron Aviation Inc. (type certificate previously held by Cessna Aircraft Company) model airplanes, that are certificated in any category:
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a report of cracks found in the lower area of the forward cabin doorpost bulkhead. We are issuing this AD to detect and address cracking of the wing strut attach point. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the wing in operation, which could result in loss of control.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the following compliance times, visually inspect the lower forward doorpost at the strut attach fitting for cracks. Do the inspection following Cessna Single Engine Accomplishment Instructions SEB95–19, dated December 29, 1995, and Cessna Single-Engine Accomplishment Instructions SEB93–5R1, dated September 8, 1995, as applicable. During the inspection, pay special attention to the contour of the wing strut support fitting. If cracks are present, they should be visible at the intersection of the doorpost and the forward doorpost bulkhead.
(1) As of the effective date of this AD, airplanes that have accumulated less than 4,000 hours time-in-service (TIS): Initially inspect upon reaching 4,000 hours TIS or within the next 200 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(2) As of the effective date of this AD, airplanes that have accumulated 4,000 hours TIS or more: Initially inspect within the next 200 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD or within the next 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
If cracks are found during any inspection required in paragraph (g) or paragraph (i) of this AD, before further flight, install the applicable service kit as specified in Cessna Single Engine Accomplishment Instructions SEB95–19, dated December 29, 1995, and Cessna Single-Engine Accomplishment Instructions SEB93–5R1, dated September 8, 1995, as applicable.
(1) If no cracks are found during the initial inspection required in paragraph (g) of this AD, repetitively thereafter inspect every 12 months or 1,000 hours TIS, whichever occurs first, as long as no cracks are found. Do the inspections following the applicable service information specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.
(2) If cracks were found during any inspection required in paragraph (g) or paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, repetitively thereafter inspect at intervals not to exceed 1,000 hours TIS after installing the applicable service kit. These repetitive inspections should be done following the applicable Accomplishment Instructions of the service information specified in paragraph (g) of this AD to the fullest extent while additionally looking for cracks extending beyond the added repair parts.
If cracks are found that extend beyond the service kit doublers that were installed as required in paragraph (h) of this AD during any inspection required in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, before further flight, contact the manufacturer at the address specified in paragraph (m)(2) of this AD for an FAA-approved repair scheme designed specifically for this AD and incorporate that repair.
(1) For the following Textron Aviation Inc. model airplanes, credit will be given for the initial inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD if done before the effective date of this AD following the Accomplishment Instructions in Cessna Single Engine Service Bulletin SEB93–5, dated March 26, 1993.
(i) Model 210–5 (205) airplanes, serial numbers (S/N) 205–0551 and 205–0556 through 205–0577.
(ii) Model 206 airplanes, S/N 206–0094 and 206–0138 through 206–0275.
(iii) Model P206/TP206 airplanes, S/N P206–0001 through P206–0603 and P20600604 through P20600647.
(iv) Model U206/TU206 airplanes, S/N 676, U206–0276 through U206–1444, and U20601445 through U20607020.
(v) Model 207/T207 airplanes, S/N 20700001 through 20700788.
(2) For Textron Aviation Inc. Model U206/TU206 airplanes, S/N 676, U206–0276 through U206–1444, and U20601445 through U20607020: Credit will be given for the repair required in paragraph (h) of this AD if done before the effective date of this AD following the Accomplishment Instructions in Cessna Single Engine Service Bulletin SEB93–5, dated March 26, 1993.
(3) For Textron Aviation Inc. Model 207/T207 airplanes, S/N 20700001 through 20700788: No credit will be given for the repair required in paragraph (h) of this AD if done before the effective date of this AD following the Accomplishment Instructions in Cessna Single Engine Service Bulletin SEB93–5, dated March 26, 1993.
(1) The Manager, Wichita 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 (m) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Bobbie Kroetch, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO Branch, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946–4155; fax: (316) 946–4107; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Textron Aviation Inc., Textron Aviation Customer Service, One Cessna Blvd., Wichita, Kansas 67215; telephone: (316) 517–5800; email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Rolls-Royce Corporation (RRC) model 250–C turboshaft engines. This proposed AD was prompted by several reports of engine power loss, one of which resulted in a fatal helicopter accident. This proposed AD would require removal of the bearing assembly, part number (P/N) 2544198, in the power turbine governor (PTG) and its replacement with a bearing assembly eligible for installation. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 19, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Rolls-Royce Corporation, 450 South Meridian Street, Mail Code NB–02–05, Indianapolis, IN 46225; phone: 317–230–3774; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
John Tallarovic, Aerospace Engineer, Chicago ACO Branch, FAA, 2300 E. Devon Ave., Des Plaines, IL 60018; phone: 847–294–8180; fax: 847–294–7834; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We were prompted to issue this NPRM based upon several reports of loss of engine power on certain RRC model 250–C turboshaft engines installed on single-engine helicopters. One of these instances of power loss resulted in a fatal helicopter accident on May 4, 2016.
During the course of the investigation of the 2016 fatal accident, RRC determined that the root cause of this engine power loss was the failure of the bearing assembly, P/N 2544198, in the PTG, due to lack of lubrication. Although RRC had issued a service bulletin in 2009 to address the failure of this bearing assembly, our risk assessment had not supported issuance of an AD at that time. Based on more recent service experience, and the fatal accident in 2016, we are now proposing an AD to remove the affected bearing assembly in the PTG and replace it with a bearing assembly with a new design. This condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the PTG, failure of the engine, in-flight shutdown, and forced autorotation landing or accident.
We reviewed Rolls-Royce Corporation Commercial Engine Bulletin (CEB) 1402, Revision 2, dated February 4, 2009. The CEB provides guidance on replacing the P/N 2544198 bearing assembly in the PTG with a bearing assembly eligible for installation.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require removal of the affected bearing assembly in the PTG and its replacement with a bearing assembly eligible for installation.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 2,928 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by March 19, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Corporation (RRC) model 250–C10D, 250–C18, 250–C18A, 250–C18B, 250–C18C, 250–C19, 250–C20, 250–C20B, 250–C20C, 250–C20F, 250–C20J, 250–C20R, 250–C20R/1, 250–C20R/2, 250–C20R/4, 250–C20S, 250–C20W, 250–C28, 250–C28B, 250–C28C, 250–C30, 250–C30G, 250–C30G/2, 250–C30M, 250–C30P, 250–C30S, and 250–C30U turboshaft engines.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7323, Turbine Governor.
This AD was prompted by several reports of loss of power, one of which resulted in a fatal helicopter accident. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the bearing assembly in the power turbine governor (PTG). The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the PTG, failure of the engine, in-flight shutdown, and forced autorotation landing or accident.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Remove the bearing assembly, part number 2544198, from the PTG in accordance with the compliance times in Figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(2) After such removal, replace the affected bearing assembly in the PTG with a part eligible for installation before further flight.
(1) The Manager, Chicago 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 Chicago ACO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact John Tallarovic, Aerospace Engineer, Chicago ACO Branch, FAA, 2300 E Devon Ave., Des Plaines, IL 60018; phone: 847–294–8180; fax: 847–294–7834; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce Corporation, 450 South Meridian Street, Mail Code NB–02–05, Indianapolis, IN 46225; phone: 317–230–3774; email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class D airspace at Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport, Kansas City, MO; remove Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D airspace at Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport; and amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Kansas City International Airport, Kansas City, MO, and Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport. The FAA is proposing this action due to the decommissioning of the Riverside VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) facility, which provided navigation guidance for the instrument procedures to Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport. The VOR has been decommissioned as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. This action also would amend the airspace designations of Class D airspace and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for these airports. Additionally, the geographic coordinates and airport name are being updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at these airports.
Comments must be received on or before March 19, 2018.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–9826, or (800) 647–5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA–2017–1083; Airspace Docket No. 17–ACE–13 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222–5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would support IFR operations at Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport, and Kansas City International Airport, Kansas City, MO.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA–2017–1083; Airspace Docket No. 17–ACE–13.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 that would:
Amend the Class D airspace at Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport by
Remove the Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D airspace at Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport as the airspace is no longer required; and
Amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Kansas City, MO, by updating the header of the airspace designation to Kansas City, MO, (from Kansas City International Airport, MO) to comply with FAA Order 7400.2L; updating the name and geographic coordinates of Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport (previously Kansas City Downtown Airport) and the geographic coordinates of Sherman Army Airfield (AAF), KS, to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; removing the Kansas City VORTAC, DOTTE LOM, Riverside VOR/DME, ILS RWY 19R localizer, ILS RWY 19 localizer, ILS RWY 1L localizer, and ILS RWY 1R localizer from the airspace description; removing all current extensions at Kansas City International Airport and Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport; and adding an extension 2 miles each side of the 215° bearing from the Charles B. Wheeler Downtown RWY 03 LOC from the 6.7-mile radius to 8.7 miles south of the Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport.
Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Riverside VOR as part of the VOR MON Program and for the safety and management of IFR operations at these airports.
Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (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); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,300 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport, excluding that airspace within the Kansas City, MO Class B airspace area; and within 1 mile each side of the 012° bearing from the Charles B. Wheeler Downtown RWY 19 LOC, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 4.4 miles north of the airport; and within 1 mile each side of the 013° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 4.3 miles north of the airport; and within 1 mile each side of the 215° bearing from the Charles B. Wheeler Downtown RWY 03 LOC, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 4.5 miles south of the airport; and within 1 mile each side of the 218° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 5 miles south of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.6-mile radius of Kansas City International Airport; and within a 6.7-mile radius of Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport; and within 2 miles each side of the 215° bearing from the Charles B. Wheeler Downtown RWY 03 LOC, extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 8.7 miles south of the Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport; and within a 6.5-mile radius of the Sherman AAF.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class D airspace, Class E surface airspace, and amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Austin Executive Airport, Austin, TX. The FAA conducted an airspace review and determined that airspace redesign is necessary due to the establishment of an air traffic control tower at the airport. This action would enhance the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operation at the airport. An editorial change also would be made removing the city associated with the airport name in the airspace designation.
Comments must be received on or before March 19, 2018.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–9826, or (800) 647–5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA–2017–9378; Airspace Docket No. 17–ASW–13, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222–5857.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class D and E airspace at Austin Executive Airport in support of IFR operations at the airport.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA–2017–9378/Airspace Docket No. 17–ASW–13.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by:
Establishing Class D airspace at Austin Executive Airport, Austin, TX, within a 4.1-mile radius of the airport;
Establishing Class E surface airspace within a 4.1-mile radius of Austin Executive Airport, Austin, TX;
Amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.3-mile radius (decreased from a 6.5-mile radius) of Austin Executive Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 131° bearing (from the 132° bearing) from the airport extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 11.3 miles (increased from a 10.4-miles) southeast of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 311° bearing from the airport
Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) for IFR operations at this airport.
Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (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); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,000 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of Austin Executive Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace within a 4.1-mile radius of Austin Executive Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 14-mile radius of the Point of Origin, and within a 6.4-mile radius of Lakeway Airpark, and within a 6.4-mile radius of Lago Vista-Rusty Allen Airport, and within a 6.3-mile radius of Austin Executive Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 131° bearing from Austin Executive Airport extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 11.3 miles southeast of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 311° bearing from Austin Executive Airport extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 10.5 miles northwest of the airport.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by Colorado on May 16, 2017. The May 16, 2017 SIP revision addresses minor changes and typographical corrections to the transportation conformity requirements of Colorado's Regulation Number 10 “Criteria for Analysis of Conformity.” These actions are being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
Written comments must be received on or before March 5, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0753 at
Tim Russ, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 312–6479, or
a.
b.
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
2. Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
The EPA is proposing approval of minor revisions to Colorado's Regulation Number 10 which is entitled “Criteria for Analysis of Conformity” (hereafter, “Regulation No. 10”). We note the most recent prior SIP revisions to Regulation No. 10, that we approved, occurred on March 4, 2014 (79 FR 12079).
The purpose of Regulation No. 10 is to address the transportation conformity SIP requirements of section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and 40 CFR 51.390(b). In addition, Regulation No. 10 also addresses the following transportation conformity SIP element requirements; 40 CFR 93.105 which formalizes the consultation procedures; 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) which addresses written commitments to control measures that are not included in a Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPOs) transportation plan and transportation improvement program that must be obtained prior to a conformity determination; and 40 CFR 93.125(c) which addresses written commitments to mitigation measures that must be obtained prior to a project-level conformity determination.
Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses our actions on submissions of revisions to a SIP. The CAA requires states to observe certain procedural requirements in developing SIP revisions for submittal to the EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP revision be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. This must occur prior to the revision being submitted by a state.
For the May 16, 2017 revisions to Regulation No. 10, the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) held a public hearing for those revisions on February 18, 2016. There were no public comments. The AQCC adopted the revisions to Regulation No. 10 directly after the hearing. This SIP revision became state effective on March 30, 2016 and was submitted by Dr. Larry Wolk, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), and on behalf of the Governor, to the EPA on May 16, 2017.
We have evaluated the State's May 16, 2017 submittal for Regulation No. 10 and have determined that the State met the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. By operation of law under section 110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, the State's May 16, 2017 submittal was deemed complete by the EPA on November 25, 2017.
The EPA has reviewed the revisions to Regulation No. 10 that were submitted by the State on May 16, 2017 and we are proposing to approve these revisions. We reviewed the State's submittal to assure consistency with the transportation conformity requirements in 40 CFR 51.390(b), that establish the requirements for conformity consultation SIPs and to the transportation conformity requirements in 40 CFR 93.105, 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 93.125(c).
Our review regarding the revisions to Regulation No. 10 included the following:
(a) The Title to Regulation No. 10. The revisions to the title included typographic changes to the title such as capitalization, use of lower case letters to remove capitalization of particular words and inclusion of a sentence regarding the editor's notes at the end of the regulation. Except for the addition of the sentence regarding the editor's notes, we otherwise note that only typographic changes were performed and no words or terms were added or deleted.
(b) Section II. “Definitions.” The EPA has reviewed and finds acceptable the revisions and clarifications that the state made to the definition of “
(c) Typographical corrections were made to the following sections: Section II, definition of
(d) Section VI. “Statements of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority, and Purpose.” The EPA notes that the changes to this section VI in the State's regulation merely provide information for the State regarding the SIP revision and are not necessary for an approvable Transportation Conformity Consultation SIP element whose purpose is to meet the requirements of CAA section 176(c)(4)(E) and 40 CFR 51.390. Therefore, the EPA is not taking any action on this section.
For the reasons discussed in section IV above, and under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is proposing to approve the Regulation No. 10 revisions to Section II to the definition of “
The EPA notes that revisions were also made to Colorado's Regulation No. 10, section VI “Statements of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority, and Purpose”; however, the EPA is not taking any action on the revisions to this section. The revisions to section VI are only informational in nature for the State and do not require federal approval into the SIP.
Under section 110(l) of the CAA, the EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and Reasonable Further Progress toward attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. The EPA proposes to determine that the portions of Regulation No. 10 that we are acting on are consistent with the applicable requirements of the CAA. Furthermore, these portions do not relax any previously approved SIP provision; thus they do not otherwise interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. In addition, section 110(l) of the CAA requires that each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a state shall be adopted by the state after reasonable notice and opportunity for public hearing. On February 18, 2016, the AQCC held a public hearing and the AQCC adopted the revisions to Regulation No. 10 directly after the hearing. This SIP revision became state effective on March 30, 2016. Therefore, the CAA section 110(l) requirements are satisfied.
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the approval of portions of Regulation No. 10 as submitted by the State of Colorado and as discussed above in section IV of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile Organic Compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve portions of the Louisiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal and a technical supplement addressing the CAA requirement that SIPs address the potential for interstate transport of air pollution to significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 fine particulate matter (PM
Written comments must be received on or before March 5, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket Number EPA–R06–OAR–2015–0851, at
Sherry Fuerst, 214–665–6454,
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
Under section 109 of the CAA, we establish NAAQS to protect human health and public welfare. In 2012, we established a new annual NAAQS for PM
The EPA has addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to PM
On December 11, 2015, Louisiana submitted a SIP revision to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) including a section to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2012 PM
We propose to approve the December 11, 2015 submittal and the July 7, 2017 technical supplement submittal that intended to demonstrate that the SIP met the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2012 PM
As stated above, Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires SIPS to include adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state that will (I) contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance of the NAAAQS in another state, and (II) interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, or to protect visibility in another state. This action addresses only CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
EPA issued an information memo on March 17, 2016, titled, “Information on the Interstate Transport “Good Neighbor” Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)” (the memo). We will be following the framework outlined in the memo.
The memo outlined the four step framework EPA has historically used to evaluate interstate transport under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), including the EPA's CSAPR.
(1) Identification of potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors;
(2) Identification of upwind states contributing to downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors;
(3) For states identified as contributing to downwind air quality problem, identification of upwind emissions reductions necessary to prevent upwind states from significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of receptors, and;
(4) For states that are found to have emissions that significantly contribute to non-attainment or interfere with maintenance downwind, reducing the identified upwind emissions through adoption of permanent and enforceable measures.
Based on this approach, the potential receptors are outlined in Table 1 in the memo. Most of the potential receptors are in California, located in the San Joaquin Valley or South Coast nonattainment areas. However, there is also one potential receptor in Shoshone County, Idaho, and one potential receptor in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
The memo did note that because of data quality problems nonattainment and maintenance projections were not done for all or portions of Florida, Illinois, Idaho, Tennessee and Kentucky. After issuance of the memo, data quality problems were resolved for Idaho, Tennessee, Kentucky and portions of Florida, identifying no additional potential receptors, with those areas having design values (DV) below the 2012 PM
Therefore, for “Step 1” of this evaluation, the areas identified as “potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors” are:
• Seventeen potential receptors in California, located in the San Joaquin Valley or South Coast nonattainment areas;
• Shoshone County, Idaho;
• Allegheny County, Pennsylvania;
• Miami-Dade, Gilchrist, Broward, and Alachua Counties in Florida; and,
• All of Illinois
As stated above, “Step 2” is the identification of states contributing to downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors, such that further analysis is required to identify necessary upwind reductions. For this step, we will be specifically determining if Louisiana emissions contribute to downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors.
Each of the potential receptors is discussed below, with a more in depth discussion provided in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this notice. For additional information, links to the documents relied upon for this analysis can be found throughout the document, more information is available in the TSD and the documents can be found in the docket for this action.
As described in our TSD, our analysis shows that Louisiana's PM
For these reasons, we propose to find that Louisiana does not significantly contribute to nonattainment, nor will it interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM
As discussed in the TSD, our analysis shows that Louisiana's PM
For these reasons, we propose to find that Louisiana does not significantly contribute to nonattainment, nor will it interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM
As discussed in the TSD, our analysis shows that Louisiana's PM
Another compelling fact is that in previous modeling, nonattainment in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania was linked to significant contributions from other states.
For these reasons, we propose to find that Louisiana does not significantly contribute to nonattainment, nor will it interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM
As discussed in more detail in the TSD, Florida did not have any potential nonattainment or maintenance receptors identified for the 1997 or 2006 PM
Both Louisiana and Florida were analyzed in the CSAPR modeling and there were no linkages shown at any monitor between these two state. Additionally, Louisiana is located 650 miles from Gilchrist County (the most western of the unclassifiable Florida counties) and is unlikely to impact air quality in Florida.
For these reasons, we propose to find that Louisiana does not significantly contribute to nonattainment, nor will it interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM
As with the counties in Florida, due to ambient monitoring data gaps in the 2009–2013 data that should have been used to identify potential PM
As stated above, Louisiana was included in the CSAPR modeling analysis for the 1997 PM
For these reasons, we propose that Louisiana will not significantly contribute to nonattainment, nor will it interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM
Since we determined that Louisiana's SIP includes provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity from contributing significantly to nonattainment in, or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS, in another state, steps 3 and 4 of this evaluation are not necessary.
In conclusion, based on our review of the potential receptors presented in the March 17, 2016 informational memo, an evaluation identifying likely emission sources affecting these potential receptors, and the 2014 base case modeling in CSAPR final rule, we propose to determine that emissions from Louisiana sources will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in, nor interfere with maintenance by, any other state with regard to the 2012 annual PM
EPA is proposing to approve the December 11, 2015 SIP revision as supplemented on July 7, 2015 as part of the SIP for Louisiana pursuant to the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)I as applicable to the 2012 PM
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of three public listening sessions and that the public comment period will be reopened.
On October 16, 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a proposal to announce its intention to repeal the Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, commonly referred to as the Clean Power Plan, as promulgated on October 23, 2015. The proposal also requested public comment on the proposed rule. The EPA held public hearings on November 28 and 29, 2017, in Charleston, West Virginia, and extended the public comment period until January 16, 2018. In response to numerous requests for additional opportunities for the public to provide oral testimony on the proposed rule in more than one location, the EPA is announcing that three listening sessions will be held. In addition, the EPA will reopen the public comment period until April 26, 2018.
The first listening session for the proposed rule published October 16, 2017, at 82 FR 48035, will be held Wednesday, February 21, 2018, in Kansas City, Missouri; the second session will be held Wednesday, February 28, 2018, in San Francisco, California; and the third session will be held Tuesday, March 27, 2018, in Gillette, Wyoming. The EPA is reopening the public comment period until April 26, 2018.
The first listening session will be held Wednesday, February 21, 2018, at the U.S. Department of Agriculture Beacon Complex, 6501 Beacon Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64133, from 10 a.m. until 8 p.m., Central Standard Time (CST). Because this listening session is being 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 the federal building in Kansas City where the listening session will be held. Acceptable alternative forms of identification include: Federal employee badges, passports, enhanced driver's licenses, and military identification cards.
Additional information on the Real ID Act is available at
Also, vehicles should only enter the West “C” Gate, identified with orange traffic cones and all vehicles must park in a designated area. Demonstrations will not be allowed on federal property for security reasons. The second listening session will be held Wednesday, February 28, 2018, at the San Francisco Main Library, Koret Auditorium, 30 Grove Street entrance, San Francisco, California 94102, from 8:30 a.m. until 7:30 p.m., Pacific Standard Time (PST). And the third listening session will be held Tuesday, March 27, 2018, at the Gillette College Technical Education Center, 3251 South 4–J Road, Gillette, Wyoming 82718, from 9 a.m. until 8 p.m., Mountain Daylight Time (MDT). The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers.
The EPA's website for the rulemaking, which includes the proposal and information about the listening sessions, can be found at:
If you are not able to register online or if you have key questions, contact Amy Bhesania at (913) 551–7147 or at
Questions concerning the proposed rule that was published in the
The proposal for which the EPA is holding the listening sessions was published in the
For planning purposes, each speaker should anticipate speaking for no more than 5 minutes, although we might need to shorten that time if there is a large turnout. The EPA encourages commenters to submit to the docket a copy of their testimony electronically (via email or CD) or in hard copy form.
The listening session schedules, including lists of speakers, will be posted on the EPA's website at:
The EPA has established a docket for the proposed rule, “Repeal of Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units,” under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0355, available at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to notify the public that it has received a negative declaration for commercial and industrial solid waste incineration (CISWI) units within the State of Maryland. This negative declaration certifies that CISWI units subject to the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) do not exist within the jurisdictional boundaries of the State of Maryland. EPA is accepting the negative declaration in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.
Written comments must be received on or before March 5, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0570 at
Mike Gordon, (215) 814–2039, or by email at
Sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA require submittal of state plans to control certain pollutants (designated pollutants) at existing solid waste combustor facilities (designated facilities) whenever standards of performance have been established by EPA under section 111(b) for new sources of the same source category and the EPA has established emission guidelines for such existing sources. When designated facilities are located in a state, the state must then develop and submit a plan for the control of the designated pollutant. Subpart B of 40 CFR part 60 establishes procedures to be followed and requirements to be met in the development and submission of state plans for controlling designated pollutants from designated facilities under sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA. Also, Subpart A of 40 CFR part 62 provides the procedural framework for the submission of these plans.
If a state fails to submit a satisfactory plan, the CAA provides the EPA the authority to prescribe a plan for regulating the designated pollutants at the designated facilities. The EPA prescribed plan, also known as a federal plan, is often delegated to states with designated facilities but no EPA approved state-specific plan. If no such designated facilities exist within a state's jurisdiction, a state may submit to the EPA a letter of certification to that effect (referred to as a negative declaration) in lieu of a state plan to satisfy the state's obligation. 40 CFR 60.23(b) and 62.06. A negative declaration exempts the state from the requirement to submit a CAA section 111(d)/section 129 plan for that designated pollutant and source category. 40 CFR 60.23(b).
On December 1, 2000 (60 FR 75338), the EPA promulgated new source performance standards for new CISWI units, 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC, and emission guidelines for existing CISWI units, 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD. After a series of legal challenges, amendments, and reconsiderations, the EPA promulgated the Reconsideration and Final Amendments for CISWI units on February 7, 2013 (78 FR 9112) (providing final standards for new and existing sources). A CISWI unit is any distinct operating unit of any commercial or industrial facility that combusts, or has combusted in the preceding six months, any solid waste, as that term is defined in 40 CFR part 241, Solid Wastes Used as Fuels or Ingredients in Combustion Units. 40 CFR 60.2875. A state plan must address all existing CISWI units that commenced construction on or before June 4, 2010, or for which modification or reconstruction was commenced on or before August 7, 2013, with limited exceptions as provided in paragraph 40 CFR 60.2555. 40 CFR 60.2550.
As discussed above, however, if there are no designated facilities in the state, the state may submit a negative declaration in lieu of a state plan. The EPA will provide public notice of receipt of a state's negative declaration with respect to CISWI. 40 CFR 60.2530. If any subsequently identified existing CISWI unit is found in a state that had submitted a negative declaration, the Federal plan implementing the emission guidelines for subpart DDDD would automatically apply to that CISWI unit until a state plan is approved. 40 CFR 60.2530.
The State of Maryland, through the MDE, has determined that there are no CISWI units subject to CAA 111(d)/129 requirements in its respective air pollution control jurisdiction. Accordingly, the MDE submitted a negative declaration letter to EPA certifying this fact on January 20, 2017. The negative declaration letter is available in the docket for this rulemaking and available online at
EPA's review of this material indicates that MDE has fulfilled its obligation under CAA Sections 129 and 111(d) for submittal of a negative declaration. EPA is proposing to approve the Maryland negative declaration for CISWI units, which was submitted on January 20, 2017. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
In reviewing section 111(d)/129 plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule for existing CISWI units within the State of Maryland does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the section 111(d)/129 plan is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) is proposing migratory bird subsistence harvest regulations in Alaska for the 2018 season. These regulations allow for the continuation of customary and traditional subsistence uses of migratory birds in Alaska and prescribe regional information on when and where the harvesting of birds may occur. These regulations were developed under a co-management process involving the Service, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and Alaska Native representatives. The rulemaking is necessary because the regulations governing the subsistence harvest of migratory birds in Alaska are subject to annual review. This rulemaking proposes region-specific regulations that would go into effect on April 2, 2018.
We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before March 5, 2018. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
•
•
We will not accept email or faxes. We will post all comments on
Donna Dewhurst, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road, Mail Stop 201, Anchorage, AK 99503; (907) 786–3499.
To ensure that any action resulting from this proposed rule will be as accurate and as effective as possible, we request that you send relevant information for our consideration. The comments that will be most useful and likely to influence our decisions are those that you support by quantitative information or studies and those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. Please make your comments as specific as possible and explain the basis for them. In addition, please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
You must submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed above in
If you mail or hand-carry a hardcopy comment directly to us that includes personal information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. To ensure that the electronic docket for this rulemaking is complete and all comments we receive are publicly available, we will post all hardcopy comments on
In addition, comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection in two ways:
(1) You can view them on
(2) You can make an appointment, during normal business hours, to view the comments and materials in person at the Division of Migratory Bird Management, MS: MB, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803; (703) 358–1714.
As stated above in more detail, 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.
Implementation of the Service's 2013 supplemental environmental impact statement on the hunting of migratory birds has resulted in changes to the overall timing of the annual regulatory schedule for the establishment of migratory bird hunting regulations and the Alaska migratory bird subsistence harvest regulations. That is, moving the annual Service Regulations Committee meeting from July to October has greatly shortened our period to publish the proposed regulations and solicit comments. We are further bounded by a subsistence harvest start date of April 2, 2018, making a 60-day comment period problematic and increasing the risk of not having regulations established before the start of the subsistence season. Thus, we have established a 30-day comment period for this proposed rule (see
This rulemaking is necessary because, by law, the migratory bird harvest season is closed unless opened by the Secretary of the Interior, and the regulations governing subsistence harvest of migratory birds in Alaska are subject to public review and annual approval. This rule proposes regulations for the taking of migratory birds for subsistence uses in Alaska during the spring and summer of 2018. This proposed rule also sets forth a list of migratory bird season openings and closures in Alaska by region.
Background information, including past events leading to this rulemaking, accomplishments since the Migratory Bird Treaties with Canada and Mexico were amended, and a history, were originally addressed in the
Recent
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing migratory bird subsistence-harvest regulations in Alaska for the 2018 season. These regulations allow for the continuation of customary and traditional subsistence uses of migratory birds in Alaska and prescribe regional information on when and where the harvesting of birds may occur. These regulations were developed under a co-management process involving the Service, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and Alaska Native representatives.
The Alaska Migratory Bird Co-management Council (Co-management Council) held meetings on April 5–6, 2017, to develop recommendations for changes that would take effect during the 2018 harvest season. The Co-management Council recommended no changes for the 2018 regulations.
Eligibility to harvest under the regulations established in 2003 was limited to permanent residents, regardless of race, in villages located within the Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak Archipelago, the Aleutian Islands, and in areas north and west of the Alaska Range (50 CFR 92.5). These geographical restrictions opened the initial migratory bird subsistence harvest to about 13 percent of Alaska residents. High-populated, roaded areas such as Anchorage, the Matanuska-Susitna and Fairbanks North Star boroughs, the Kenai Peninsula roaded area, the Gulf of Alaska roaded area, and Southeast Alaska were excluded from eligible subsistence harvest areas.
In response to petitions requesting inclusion in the harvest in 2004, we added 13 additional communities consistent with the criteria set forth at 50 CFR 92.5(c). These communities were Gulkana, Gakona, Tazlina, Copper Center, Mentasta Lake, Chitina, Chistochina, Tatitlek, Chenega, Port Graham, Nanwalek, Tyonek, and Hoonah, with a combined population of 2,766. In 2005, we added three additional communities for glaucous-winged gull egg gathering only in response to petitions requesting inclusion. These southeastern communities were Craig, Hydaburg, and Yakutat, with a combined population of 2,459, according to the latest census information at that time.
In 2007, we enacted the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's request to expand the Fairbanks North Star Borough excluded area to include the Central Interior area. This action excluded the following communities from participation in this harvest: Big Delta/Fort Greely, Healy, McKinley Park/Village, and Ferry, with a combined population of 2,812.
In 2012, we received a request from the Native Village of Eyak to include Cordova, Alaska, for a limited season that would legalize the traditional gathering of gull eggs and the hunting of waterfowl during spring. This request resulted in a new, limited harvest of spring waterfowl and gull eggs starting in 2014.
Under subpart C, General Regulations Governing Subsistence Harvest, we are amending § 92.22, the list of birds open to subsistence harvest, by adding emperor goose (
We have monitored subsistence harvest for the past 25 years through the use of household surveys in the most heavily used subsistence harvest areas, such as the Yukon–Kuskokwim Delta. In recent years, more intensive surveys combined with outreach efforts focused on species identification have been added to improve the accuracy of information gathered from regions still reporting some subsistence harvest of listed or candidate species.
Based on our monitoring of the migratory bird species and populations taken for subsistence, we find that this regulation would provide for the preservation and maintenance of migratory bird stocks as required by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Act; 16 U.S.C. 703
As for the ensuring the conservation of Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The Service has dual objectives and responsibilities for authorizing a subsistence harvest while protecting migratory birds and threatened species. Although these objectives continue to be challenging, they are not irreconcilable, provided that: (1) Regulations continue to protect threatened species, (2) measures to address documented threats are implemented, and (3) the subsistence community and other conservation partners commit to working together. With these dual
This proposed rule continues to focus on the North Slope from Utqiagvik (formerly known as Barrow) to Point Hope because Steller's eiders from the listed Alaska breeding population are known to breed and migrate there, and harvest survey data and direct observations indicate take during subsistence harvest has occurred there. These regulations are designed to address several ongoing eider-management needs by clarifying for subsistence users that (1) Service law enforcement personnel have authority to verify species of birds possessed by hunters, and (2) it is illegal to possess any species of bird closed to harvest. This proposed rule also describes how the Service's existing authority of emergency closure would be implemented, if necessary, to protect Steller's eiders. We are always willing to discuss regulations with our partners on the North Slope to ensure protection of closed species while providing subsistence hunters an opportunity to maintain the culture and traditional migratory bird harvest of the community. These regulations pertaining to bag checks and possession of illegal birds are deemed necessary to monitor take of closed eider species during the subsistence hunt.
In collaboration with North Slope partners, a number of conservation efforts have been implemented to raise awareness and educate hunters in and around Utqiagvik on Steller's eider conservation via the local bird outreach festival, meetings, radio shows, signs, school visits, and one-on-one contacts. Limited intermittent monitoring on the North Slope, focused primarily at Utqiagvik, found no evidence that listed eiders were shot in 2009 through 2012; one Steller's eider and one spectacled eider were found shot during the summer of 2013; one Steller's eider was found shot in 2014; and no listed eiders were found shot in 2015 through 2017. Elsewhere in Alaska, one spectacled eider that appeared to have been shot was found dead on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta in 2015. The Service acknowledges progress made with the other eider conservation measures, including partnering with the North Slope Migratory Bird Task Force, for increased waterfowl-hunter awareness, continued enforcement of the regulations, and in-season verification of the harvest. To reduce the threat of shooting mortality of threatened eiders, we continue to work with North Slope partners to conduct education and outreach. In addition, the emergency-closure authority provides another level of assurance if an unexpected number of Steller's eiders are killed by shooting (50 CFR 92.21 and 50 CFR 92.32).
The longstanding general emergency-closure provision at 50 CFR 92.21 specifies that the harvest may be closed or temporarily suspended upon finding that a continuation of the regulation allowing the harvest would pose an imminent threat to the conservation of any migratory bird population. With regard to Steller's eiders, the regulations at 50 CFR 92.32, carried over from the past 7 years, clarify that we would take action under 50 CFR 92.21 as is necessary to prevent further take of Steller's eiders, and that action could include temporary or long-term closures of the harvest in all or a portion of the geographic area open to harvest. When and if mortality of threatened eiders is documented, we would evaluate each mortality event by criteria such as cause, quantity, sex, age, location, and date. We would consult with the Co-management Council when we are considering an emergency closure. If we determine that an emergency closure is necessary, we would design it to minimize its impact on the subsistence harvest.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536) requires the Secretary of the Interior to “review other programs administered by him (or her) and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of the Act” and to “insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out * * * is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat. * * *” Prior to issuance of annual spring and summer subsistence regulations, we would consult under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
Consultation under section 7 of the ESA for the annual subsistence take regulations may cause us to change these regulations. Our biological opinion resulting from the section 7 consultation is a public document available from the person listed under
We derive our authority to issue these regulations from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, at 16 U.S.C. 712(1), which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, in accordance with the treaties with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia, to “issue such regulations as may be necessary to assure that the taking of migratory birds and the collection of their eggs, by the indigenous inhabitants of the State of Alaska, shall be permitted for their own nutritional and other essential needs, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, during seasons established so as to provide for the preservation and maintenance of stocks of migratory birds.”
This proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because this proposed rule would establish annual harvest limits related to routine hunting or fishing.
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this proposed rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed
The Department of the Interior certifies that, if adopted, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This proposed rule:
(a) Would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. It legalizes and regulates a traditional subsistence activity. It would not result in a substantial increase in subsistence harvest or a significant change in harvesting patterns. The commodities that would be regulated under this rule are migratory birds. This proposed rule deals with legalizing the subsistence harvest of migratory birds and, as such, does not involve commodities traded in the marketplace. A small economic benefit from this proposed rule derives from the sale of equipment and ammunition to carry out subsistence hunting. Most, if not all, businesses that sell hunting equipment in rural Alaska qualify as small businesses. We have no reason to believe that this proposed rule would lead to a disproportionate distribution of benefits.
(b) Would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies; or geographic regions. This proposed rule does not deal with traded commodities and, therefore, would not have an impact on prices for consumers.
(c) Would not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This proposed rule deals with the harvesting of wildlife for personal consumption. It would not regulate the marketplace in any way to generate substantial effects on the economy or the ability of businesses to compete.
We have determined and certified under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
Under the criteria in Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule would not have significant takings implications. This proposed rule is not specific to particular land ownership, but applies to the harvesting of migratory bird resources throughout Alaska. A takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in Executive Order 13132, this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. We discuss effects of this proposed rule on the State of Alaska in the
The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined that it would not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
Consistent with Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249; November 6, 2000), “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” and Department of Interior policy on Consultation with Indian Tribes (December 1, 2011), we will send letters via electronic mail to all 229 Alaska Federally recognized Indian tribes. Consistent with Congressional direction (Pub. L. 108–199, div. H, Sec. 161, Jan. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 452, as amended by Pub. L. 108–447, div. H, title V, Sec. 518, Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 3267), we also send letters to approximately 200 Alaska Native corporations and other tribal entities in Alaska soliciting their input as to whether or not they would like the Service to consult with them on the 2018 migratory bird subsistence harvest regulations.
We implemented the amended treaty with Canada with a focus on local involvement. The treaty calls for the creation of management bodies to ensure an effective and meaningful role for Alaska's indigenous inhabitants in the conservation of migratory birds. According to the Letter of Submittal, management bodies are to include Alaska Native, Federal, and State of Alaska representatives as equals. They develop recommendations for, among other things: Seasons and bag limits, methods and means of take, law enforcement policies, population and harvest monitoring, education programs, research and use of traditional knowledge, and habitat protection. The management bodies involve village councils to the maximum extent possible in all aspects of management. To ensure maximum input at the village level, we required each of the 11 participating regions to create regional management bodies consisting of at least one representative from the participating villages. The regional management bodies meet twice annually to review and/or submit proposals to the Statewide body.
This proposed rule does not contain any new collections of information that require Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Voluntary annual household surveys that we use to determine levels of subsistence take (OMB Control Number 1018–0124, expires October 31, 2019).
• Permits associated with subsistence hunting (OMB Control Number 1018–0075, expires June 30, 2019).
• Emperor Goose Spring Subsistence Harvest Survey (to include number of geese harvested, age, sex, and mass of birds harvested associated) (OMB Control Number 1090–0011, expires August 31, 2018).
The annual regulations and options are considered in an October 2017 environmental assessment, “Managing Migratory Bird Subsistence Hunting in Alaska: Hunting Regulations for the 2018 Spring/Summer Harvest.” Copies are available from the person listed under
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This is not a significant regulatory action under this Executive Order; it allows only for traditional subsistence harvest and improves conservation of migratory birds by allowing effective regulation of this harvest. Further, this proposed rule is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action under Executive Order 13211, and a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
Hunting, Treaties, Wildlife.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, we propose to amend title 50, chapter I, subchapter G, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
16 U.S.C. 703–712.
The addition and revision read as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) Emperor goose (
(6) Canada goose, subspecies cackling goose.
The 2018 season dates for the eligible subsistence-harvest areas are as follows:
(a)
(i)
(ii)
(2) Central Unit (Aleutian Region's eastern boundary on the Alaska Peninsula westward to and including Unalaska Island):
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(3) Western Unit (Umnak Island west to and including Attu Island):
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(c)
(2)
(d)
(i)
(ii)
(2) Remainder of the region:
(i)
(ii)
(e)
(1)
(2)
(f)
(2)
(g)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(2) Northern Unit (At Peard Bay, everything east of the longitude line 158°30′ W and north of the latitude line 70°45′ N to west bank of the Ikpikpuk River, and everything north of the latitude line 69°45′ N between the west bank of the Ikpikpuk River to the east bank of Sagavinirktok River):
(i)
(ii)
(3) Eastern Unit (East of eastern bank of the Sagavanirktok River):
(i)
(ii)
(4)
(5) North Coastal Zone (Cape Thompson north to Point Hope and east along the Arctic Ocean coastline around Point Barrow to Ross Point, including Iko Bay, and 5 miles inland).
(i) No person may at any time, by any means, or in any manner, possess or have in custody any migratory bird or part thereof, taken in violation of subparts C and D of this part.
(ii) Upon request from a Service law enforcement officer, hunters taking, attempting to take, or transporting migratory birds taken during the subsistence harvest season must present them to the officer for species identification.
(h)
(2)
(i)
(1)
(2)
(3) The Copper River Basin communities listed above also documented traditional use harvesting birds in Game Management Unit 12, making them eligible to hunt in this unit using the seasons specified in paragraph (h) of this section.
(j)
(i)
(ii)
(2) Prince William Sound Area East (Harvest area: Game Management Units 6[B]and [C]—Barrier Islands between Strawberry Channel and Softtuk Bar), (Eligible Chugach communities: Cordova, Tatitlek, and Chenega Bay):
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(3) Kachemak Bay Area (Harvest area: Game Management Unit 15[C] South of a line connecting the tip of Homer Spit to the mouth of Fox River) (Eligible Chugach Communities: Port Graham, Nanwalek):
(i)
(ii)
(k)
(1)
(2)
(l)
(i)
(ii)
(2) Communities of Craig and Hydaburg (Harvest area: Small islands and adjacent shoreline of western Prince of Wales Island from Point Baker to Cape Chacon, but also including Coronation and Warren islands):
(i)
(ii)
(3) Community of Yakutat (Harvest area: Icy Bay (Icy Cape to Point Riou), and coastal lands and islands bordering the Gulf of Alaska from Point Manby southeast to and including Dry Bay):
(i)
(ii)
Upon finding that continuation of these subsistence regulations would pose an imminent threat to the conservation of threatened Steller's eiders
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Comments are requested regarding (1) 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; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by March 5, 2018 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of an approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the voluntary Trichinae Certification Program.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before April 2, 2018.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the Trichinae Certification Program, contact Dr. John Korslund, Staff Epidemiologist, Surveillance, Preparedness and Response Services, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 46, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851–3468. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851–2483.
APHIS regulations in 9 CFR part 149 contain certification requirements for the voluntary Trichinae Certification Program, which is a cooperative effort by APHIS and the U.S. pork industry. The program is intended to enhance the ability of swine producers, as well as slaughter facilities and other persons that handle or process swine from pork production sites that have been certified under the program, to export fresh pork and pork products to foreign markets.
There are a number of information collection activities associated with the voluntary Trichinae Certification Program, such as requests to temporarily withdraw from the program, notification to APHIS of program withdrawal, requests for review of audit results or other determinations, certification site audit forms and requests for certification site audits, spot audits, animal disposal plans, animal movement records, rodent control logbooks, feed mill quality assurance affidavits, slaughter testing records, and recordkeeping.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) 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;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All 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.
Commodity Credit Corporation and Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice of withdrawal and cancellation.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) has withdrawn support for the Farm-to-Fleet BPI Program, and is cancelling funding for the BPI payments to companies that are refining biofuel in the United States from certain domestically grown feedstocks converted to drop-in biofuel for delivery to supply biofuels to the Navy. USDA has reassessed how to best use limited available funds and has determined that the BPI is no longer a priority for CCC funding. The impact of this withdrawal is that suppliers of fuel containing a biofuel blend to the U.S. Navy are no longer eligible to receive a CCC incentive payment, through the Farm-to-Fleet BPI Program.
Kelly Novak, (202) 720–4053.
A notice of funds availability for the Farm-to-Fleet Feedstock BPI was published in the
CCC funds, administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA), were used for BPI payments to help increase the domestic consumption of agricultural commodities in the biofuel market. Up to $50 million of CCC funds was announced as being available through FY 2018. This notice withdraws the availability of BPI payments for deliveries not yet solicited or procured by the U.S. Navy and Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Energy office and cancels USDA support for biofuel blends solicited by the DLA Energy office and US Navy. Specifically, FSA will continue to make the BPI payments required under the existing commitments. BPI payments will continue to be made to the eligible claimant awarded a contract under DLA Energy's Rocky Mountain West solicitation (SPE600–17–R–0709) and BPI payments will be made on any awards resulting from the Rocky Mountain West and Inland East Gulf solicitations published prior to the publication of this withdrawal. No BPI payments will be made related to any DLA Energy solicitations that are announced after this withdrawal is published.
First Responder Network Authority, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The First Responder Network Authority (“FirstNet”) publishes this notice of its final procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). The final procedures include a revised list of, and replace, previously established categorical exclusions (“CEs”) and extraordinary circumstances.
These procedures take effect as of February 1, 2018.
Eli Veenendaal, First Responder Network Authority, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 3122 Sterling Circle, Suite 100, Boulder, CO 80301 or
The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (47 U.S.C. 1401
On April 28, 2014, FirstNet, as a newly created federal entity, published a notice in the
As it has continued to mature as an organization, FirstNet has identified the need to modify its NEPA implementing procedures and revise its list of categorical exclusions and extraordinary circumstances (CEs) to ensure that such procedures better align with FirstNet's statutory mission and activities related to the deployment of the NPSBN, as well as better assist FirstNet in complying with NEPA as well as CEQ and Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) regulations. More specifically, FirstNet, as both an independent federal authority and a licensee of the FCC, must satisfy its own NEPA obligations as well as comply with FCC-promulgated NEPA procedures.
Accordingly, on June 23, 2017, FirstNet published for comment proposed revisions to its NEPA implementing procedures and
FirstNet consulted with the CEQ on the proposed and final revisions to its NEPA implementing procedures and CEs. The CEQ issued a letter stating that it has reviewed the revised procedures, including CEs, and found it to be in conformity with NEPA and CEQ regulations.
Comments on the proposed procedures and categorical exclusions included several similar positions, inquiries both within and outside the scope of the procedures, and recommendations stemming from the proposed procedural revisions and categorical exclusions. FirstNet has carefully considered each of the comments submitted, grouped and summarized the comments by issues raised, and responded accordingly.
The PWA defines the term “plain writing” to mean writing that is clear, concise, well-organized, and follows best practices appropriate to the subject or field and intended audience.
In particular, FirstNet, as both a Federal entity and an FCC spectrum licensee, drafted the revised procedures to align its responsibility to comply with NEPA with the requirements placed upon it as an FCC licensee.
FirstNet originally added and has retained the references to these statutes based on previous comments from the DOI.
First, in regard to the siting of communication towers, the DOI appears to be confused about the statutory roles of both FirstNet and the FCC and the nature of the relationship between the agencies. The FCC, not FirstNet, is the federal agency primarily responsible for implementing and enforcing the nation's communications law and regulations, including the management and licensing of the electromagnetic spectrum for commercial use.
FirstNet, as a point of fact, is a licensee of the FCC and is subject to FCC environmental rules, including those related to tower and antenna siting.
Furthermore, as mentioned above, FirstNet asserts that its revised NEPA implementing procedures sufficiently consider environmental resources under NEPA and support compliance with environmental statutes and regulations applicable to the deployment of the NPSBN. FirstNet disagrees with DOI that it must have environmental review standards explicitly more protective of migratory birds than those of the FCC as such requirements would jeopardize FirstNet's ability to fulfill its statutory mission.
FirstNet's statutory mission, as previously stated, is to ensure the establishment of the NPSBN, and in doing so, make efforts to speed the deployment of the network in order to make services available for public safety entities.
To that end, additional environmental requirements above and beyond those legally required of all FCC licensees would likely disadvantage FirstNet in its efforts to provide timely and competitively priced services to public safety entities due to the addition of unnecessary costs and subsequent delays in network deployment stemming from these requirements. As a result, FirstNet's ability to meet it statutory mandate and establish and ensure the on-going viability of an interoperable, nationwide broadband network for public safety would be put at significant risk. Accordingly, because the revisions to FirstNet's NEPA implementing procedures comply with NEPA and CEQ regulations, as well as existing FCC environmental rules applicable to other licensees, the revised NEPA implementing procedures are sufficient to account for environmental resources, such as migratory birds, that may be impacted by network deployment.
More specifically, FirstNet's full list of extraordinary circumstances encompasses resources beyond “wildlife preserves,” and includes both “wilderness areas” and “areas that may affect listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitats; or (ii) are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any proposed endangered or threatened species or likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitats, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531) (“ESA”).”
Furthermore, as a general matter, NEPA requires federal agencies to coordinate environmental reviews with agencies with jurisdiction over specific resources.
Moreover, NPSBN deployment on federal lands or impacting resources under another agency's jurisdiction, including the DOI, will be identified and considered by FirstNet under NEPA, at a minimum, if not directly, through other applicable processes (
Furthermore, FirstNet, in accordance with its implementing procedures, upon reviewing a proposed action that would otherwise be categorically excluded, including those installations described by DOI, could determine that the proposed action may potentially have a significant impact and on its own motion require the development of an environmental assessment.
Accordingly, as previously stated, the revised NEPA implementing procedures adequately account for environmental resources, including those under the jurisdiction of DOI, that may be impacted by network deployment and comply with the requirements established by NEPA and CEQ regulations.
During this review, FirstNet identified that as both an independent federal authority and a licensee of the FCC, it must comply with potentially duplicative regulations, such as those imposed under NEPA, CEQ regulations, and FCC regulations. In particular, FirstNet determined that all NPSBN proposed activities undertaken would be subject to both FirstNet NEPA procedure and FCC rules and regulations. Consequently, FirstNet conducted a review comparing its existing implementing procedures, CEs, and extraordinary circumstances with the FCC environmental rules and determined that aligning the FirstNet and FCC NEPA processes, including CEs and extraordinary circumstances, was necessary in order to avoid duplicating analysis and documentation resulting in additional costs or delays in network deployment. A key part of aligning these processes was ensuring that the FirstNet processes and standard of review, including CEs and extraordinary circumstances, were consistent with the FCC environmental rules, which necessitated removing and replacing previously established extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, as the FCC has well established and applied environmental rules for complying with NEPA, specifically applicable to tower construction and siting, FirstNet, among other modifications, removed its previously established categorical exclusion referencing “environmentally sensitive” resources and replaced it with multiple other extraordinary circumstances, which, as discussed above, FirstNet considers both sufficient to account for resources previously identified as “environmentally sensitive,” while ensuring a consistent and streamlined NEPA review process as contemplated by CEQ regulations and guidance.
First, as a point of clarity and contrary to DOI's concern, FirstNet will not pre-determine any proposed action, including towers lower than 450, are
Second, FirstNet asserts that compliance with its revised NEPA implementing procedures will provide sufficient information for FirstNet to review and make a determination as to the appropriate level of NEPA review for any site-specific action, including new installations that are above 199 feet AGL, not co-located with existing facilities or are guyed. In particular, as discussed above, FirstNet's revised NEPA implementing procedures include, among other statutory and regulatory references, specific language identifying the BGEPA, MBTA, and E.O. 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds as areas, that should be considered, as appropriate, as part of a NEPA review.
Furthermore, as previously stated, FirstNet, in accordance with its implementing procedures, upon reviewing a proposed action that would otherwise be categorically excluded, including those installations described by DOI, could, as previously mentioned, determine that the proposed action may potentially have a significant impact and on its own motion require the development of an environmental assessment.
Accordingly, FirstNet's NEPA review process, inclusive of the existing language related to MBTA and BGEPA and in addition to its various other extraordinary circumstances, adequately accounts for the resources and potential environmental impacts necessary for FirstNet to make a NEPA determination related to the proposed action, including whether the development of an EA is necessary to determine the environmental impacts.
Finally, FirstNet recognizes, as noted by the DOI, that the FWS has formulated best practices for tower siting to address the potential effects of tower and antenna structures on migratory birds. FirstNet has taken steps that will align the deployment of the NPSBN with these best practices, particularly by adopting a strategy that will facilitate tower co-locations. Consistent with the DOI's tower siting guidance, FirstNet has sought and entered into an agreement to utilize, to the maximum extent economically desirable, existing commercial or other communications infrastructure in the establishment of the NPSBN.
Nevertheless, FirstNet, consistent with the FCC's recommendation to its licensees, will consider implementing these voluntary guidelines, as practicable and feasible, in the deployment of the NPSBN, but will not make them a mandatory requirement of NPSBN deployment.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Every five years, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission automatically initiate and conduct a review to determine whether revocation of a countervailing or antidumping duty order or termination of an investigation suspended under section 704 or 734 of the Act would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the case may be) and of material injury.
Pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, the following Sunset Reviews are scheduled for initiation in March 2018 and will appear in that month's
Commerce's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in 19 CFR 351.218. The
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), Commerce will maintain and make available a service list for these proceedings. To facilitate the timely preparation of the service list(s), it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding contact Commerce in writing within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.
Please note that if Commerce receives a Notice of Intent to Participate from a member of the domestic industry within 15 days of the date of initiation, the review will continue.
Thereafter, any interested party wishing to participate in the Sunset Review must provide substantive comments in response to the notice of initiation no later than 30 days after the date of initiation.
This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission (ITC), Commerce is issuing countervailing duty orders on certain cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel (cold-drawn mechanical tubing) from the People's Republic of China (China) and India.
February 1, 2018.
Shanah Lee at (202) 482–6386, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, and Ryan Mullen at (202) 482–5260, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on December 11, 2017, Commerce published its affirmative final determinations in the countervailing duty investigations of cold-drawn mechanical tubing from China and India.
The product covered by these orders is cold-drawn mechanical tubing from China and India. For a complete description of the scope of these orders,
As stated above, on January 24, 2018, in accordance with sections 705(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of cold-drawn mechanical tubing from China and India.
As a result of the ITC's final determination, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties on unliquidated entries of cold-drawn mechanical tubing from China and India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after September 25, 2017, the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 706 of the Act, Commerce will instruct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation on all entries of subject merchandise from China and India, applicable the
With regard
This notice constitutes the countervailing duty orders with respect to cold-drawn mechanical tubing from China and India pursuant to section 706(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of countervailing duty orders at
These orders are issued and published in accordance with section 706(a) and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
The scope of these orders covers cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel (cold-drawn mechanical tubing) of circular cross-section, 304.8 mm or more in length, in actual outside diameters less than 331mm, and regardless of wall thickness, surface finish, end finish or industry specification. The subject cold-drawn mechanical tubing is a tubular product with a circular cross-sectional shape that has been cold-drawn or otherwise cold-finished after the initial tube formation in a manner that involves a change in the diameter or wall thickness of the tubing, or both. The subject cold-drawn mechanical tubing may be produced from either welded (
Subject cold-drawn mechanical tubing is typically certified to meet industry specifications for cold-drawn tubing including but not limited to:
(1) American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) specifications ASTM A–512, ASTM A–513 Type 3 (ASME SA513 Type 3), ASTM A–513 Type 4 (ASME SA513 Type 4), ASTM A–513 Type 5 (ASME SA513 Type 5), ASTM A–513 Type 6 (ASME SA513 Type 6), ASTM A–519 (cold-finished);
(2) SAE International (Society of Automotive Engineers) specifications SAE J524, SAE J525, SAE J2833, SAE J2614, SAE J2467, SAE J2435, SAE J2613;
(3) Aerospace Material Specification (AMS) AMS T–6736 (AMS 6736), AMS 6371, AMS 5050, AMS 5075, AMS 5062, AMS 6360, AMS 6361, AMS 6362, AMS 6371, AMS 6372, AMS 6374, AMS 6381, AMS 6415;
(4) United States Military Standards (MIL) MIL–T–5066 and MIL–T–6736;
(5) foreign standards equivalent to one of the previously listed ASTM, ASME, SAE, AMS or MIL specifications including but not limited to:
(a) German Institute for Standardization (DIN) specifications DIN 2391–2, DIN 2393–2, DIN 2394–2);
(b) European Standards (EN) EN 10305–1, EN 10305–2, EN 10305–4, EN 10305–6 and European national variations on those standards (
(c) Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS) JIS G 3441 and JIS G 3445; and
(6) proprietary standards that are based on one of the above-listed standards.
The subject cold-drawn mechanical tubing may also be dual or multiple certified to more than one standard. Pipe that is multiple certified as cold-drawn mechanical tubing and to other specifications not covered by this scope, is also covered by the scope of these orders when it meets the physical description set forth above.
Steel products included in the scope of these orders are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; and (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less by weight.
For purposes of this scope, the place of cold-drawing determines the country of origin of the subject merchandise. Subject merchandise that is subject to minor working in a third country that occurs after drawing in one of the subject countries including, but not limited to, heat treatment, cutting to length, straightening, nondestructive testing, deburring or chamfering, remains within the scope of these orders.
All products that meet the written physical description are within the scope of these orders unless specifically excluded or covered by the scope of an existing order. Merchandise that meets the physical description of cold-drawn mechanical tubing above is within the scope of the orders even if it is also dual or multiple certified to an otherwise excluded specification listed below. The following products are outside of, and/or specifically excluded from, the scope of these orders:
(1) Cold-drawn stainless steel tubing, containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium by weight and not more than 1.2 percent of carbon by weight;
(2) products certified to one or more of the ASTM, ASME or American Petroleum Institute (API) specifications listed below:
The products subject to the orders are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7304.31.3000, 7304.31.6050, 7304.51.1000, 7304.51.5005, 7304.51.5060, 7306.30.5015, 7306.30.5020, 7306.50.5030. Subject merchandise may also enter under numbers 7306.30.1000 and 7306.50.1000. The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the orders is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Brenda E. Brown, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–4735.
Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that the Department of Commerce (Commerce) conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.
All deadlines for the submission of comments or actions by Commerce discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting date.
In the event Commerce limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, Commerce intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties having an APO within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of the initiation
In the event Commerce decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:
In general, Commerce finds that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that requests a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that Commerce may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when Commerce will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that, with regard to reviews requested on the basis of anniversary months on or after February 2018, Commerce does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by Commerce to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.
Commerce is providing this notice on its website, as well as in its “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” notices, so that interested parties will be aware of the manner in which Commerce intends to exercise its discretion in the future.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding or an antidumping or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review. In addition, a domestic interested party or an interested party described in section 771(9)(B) of the Act must state why it desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters. If the interested party intends for the Secretary to review sales of merchandise by an exporter (or a producer if that producer also exports merchandise from other suppliers) which was produced in more than one country of origin and each country of origin is subject to a separate order, then the interested party must state specifically, on an order-by-order basis, which exporter(s) the request is intended to cover.
Note that, for any party Commerce was unable to locate in prior segments, Commerce will not accept a request for an administrative review of that party absent new information as to the party's location. Moreover, if the interested party who files a request for review is unable to locate the producer or exporter for which it requested the review, the interested party must provide an explanation of the attempts
As explained in
Commerce no longer considers the non-market economy (NME) entity as an exporter conditionally subject to an antidumping duty administrative reviews.
All requests must be filed electronically in Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) on Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS website at
Commerce will publish in the
For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the period of review.
This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In accordance with the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department of Commerce (Commerce) is automatically initiating the five-year reviews (Sunset Reviews) of the antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) order(s) listed below. The International Trade Commission (the Commission) is publishing concurrently with this notice its notice of
Applicable (February 1, 2018).
Commerce official identified in the
Commerce's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its
In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating Sunset Reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty order(s):
As a courtesy, we are making information related to sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statute and Commerces's regulations, Commerce's schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on Commerce's website at the following address:
Any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
On April 10, 2013, Commerce modified two regulations related to AD/CVD proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), Commerce will maintain and make available a public service list for these proceedings. Parties wishing to participate in any of these five-year reviews must file letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)). To facilitate the timely preparation of the public service list, it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding submit an entry of appearance within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.
Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties who want access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (APO) to file an APO application immediately following publication in the
Domestic interested parties, as defined in section 771(9)(C),(D),(E),(F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the
If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, Commerce's regulations provide that
This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of rescheduled SEDAR 58 Cobia Stock Identification Data Scoping Webinar.
The SEDAR 58 Cobia Stock Identification Data Scoping webinar originally scheduled for January 22, 2018 had to be rescheduled due to the Federal government shutdown. The SEDAR 58 assessment(s) of the Atlantic stock(s) of cobia will consist of a series of workshops and webinars: Stock ID Workshop; Stock ID Review Workshop; Stock ID Joint Cooperator Technical Review; Data Workshop; Assessment Workshop and/or Webinars; and a Review Workshop. See
The rescheduled SEDAR 58 Stock ID Data Scoping Webinar will be held on February 5, 2018, from 11 a.m. until 1 p.m.
Julia Byrd, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571–4366; email:
The original notice published in the
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 typically a three-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing workshop and/or webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. 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 Stock ID Data Scoping Webinar are as follows:
1. Participants will review the SEDAR 58 Cobia Stock ID process.
2. Participants will identify potential data sources and discuss data needs and treatments in order to prepare for the Stock ID Workshop.
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
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice of meeting.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission) announces that on Wednesday, February 14, 2018, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., the CFTC's Technology Advisory Committee (TAC) will hold a rescheduled public meeting at the CFTC's Washington, DC headquarters. The TAC meeting, previously scheduled for January 23, 2018, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., was canceled and is now being rescheduled with less than fifteen days' notice due to the lapse in appropriations that closed the Federal Government. At the rescheduled meeting, the TAC will: (1) Discuss the scope, plan, and approach for the Committee's efforts in 2018; (2) explore timely topics and issues involving financial technology in CFTC regulated markets, potentially including blockchain/DLT, data standardization and analytics, algorithmic trading, virtual currencies, cybersecurity, and RegTech; and (3) identify work streams and/or subcommittee groups that can help generate actionable recommendations to the Commission on select issues.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 14, 2018 from 10:00 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Members of the public who wish to submit written statements in connection with the meeting should submit them by Wednesday, February 21, 2018.
The meeting will take place in the Conference Center at the CFTC's headquarters, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581. Written statements should be submitted by mail to: Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW,
Daniel Gorfine, TAC Designated Federal Officer, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418–5625.
The meeting will be open to the public with seating on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public may also listen to the meeting by telephone by calling a domestic toll-free telephone or international toll or toll-free number to connect to a live, listen-only audio feed. Call-in participants should be prepared to provide their first name, last name, and affiliation.
The meeting agenda may change to accommodate other TAC priorities. For agenda updates, please visit the TAC committee site at:
After the meeting, a transcript of the meeting will be published through a link on the CFTC's website,
5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(a)(2).
Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS).
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, CNCS is proposing to renew an information collection for the Day of Service Project Collection Tool.
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:
(1)
(2) By hand delivery or by courier to the CNCS mailroom at the mail address given in paragraph (1) above, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.
(3) Electronically through
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY–TDD) may call 1–800–833–3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through
David Sherman, 202–606–6986, or by email at
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing
Defense Finance and Accounting Service, DoD.
30-Day information collection notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by March 5, 2018.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
Fred Licari, 571–372–0493, or
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350–3100.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, DoD.
30-Day information collection notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by March 5, 2018.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
Fred Licari, 571–372–0493.
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350–3100.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2018 for Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Educational Agencies, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.060A.
Part I of Electronic Application System for Indian Education (EASIE) Applications Available: February 5, 2018.
Deadline for Transmittal of EASIE Part I: March 8, 2018.
Part II of EASIE Applications Available: April 9, 2018.
Deadline for Transmittal of EASIE Part II: May 17, 2018.
For questions about the Formula Grants program, contact Paulette Davis, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3W227, Washington, DC 20202–6335. Telephone: (202) 260–2840 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), contact the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–0996 or by email at:
As authorized under section 6116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA),
(a) Awards that are primarily for the benefit of Indians are subject to the provisions of section 7(b) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5307(b)). That section requires that, to the greatest extent feasible, a grantee—
(1) Give to Indians preferences and opportunities for training and employment in connection with the administration of the grant; and
(2) Give to IOs and to Indian-owned economic enterprises, as defined in section 3 of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1452(e)), preference in the award of contracts in connection with the administration of the grant.
(b) For purposes of this section, an Indian is a member of any federally recognized Indian Tribe.
1.
2. a.
b.
1.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
a.
(i) In EASIE Part I, applicants that are Tribes, IOs, or ICBOs must submit with their application a document to verify their eligibility. Each applicant that is a Tribe, IO, or ICBO must use the appropriate “Applying in Lieu of the LEA” agreement form no later than March 8, 2018. The details of the verification process, which are necessary to meet the statutory eligibility requirements for Tribes, IOs, and ICBOs, are in the application package. Applicants are required to use the correct applicant type eligibility verification document, all of which are available on the Getting Started page in the EDFacts System Portal as downloadable documents.
(ii) In EASIE Part I, an applicant that is the lead applicant for a consortium must upload a consortium agreement that meets the requirements of 34 CFR 75.128(b) no later than March 8, 2018. Applicants must use the consortium agreement that is available on the Getting Started page in the EDFacts System Portal as a downloadable document.
(iii) In EASIE Part II, for an applicant that is an LEA or a consortium of LEAs, the EASIE application requires the electronic PDF submission of the Indian Parent Committee Approval (PCA) form no later than the deadline for transmittal of EASIE Part II, which is May 17, 2018. Applicants are encouraged to begin planning parent committee meetings early to ensure parent committee signatures are obtained before EASIE Part II closes. The required form is available on the Getting Started page in the EDFacts System Portal.
3.
Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using EASIE located in the EDFacts System Portal. For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirements, please refer to
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
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
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. We strongly recommend that you register early.
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.
Applications for grants under the Formula Grants program, CFDA number 84.060A, must be submitted electronically using the EASIE application located in the EDFacts System Portal at
Applications submitted in paper format will be rejected unless you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement described later in this section under
EASIE Part I, student count, provides the appropriate data-entry screens to submit your verified Indian student count totals. All applicants must submit a current Indian student count for FY 2018. Applicants must use the Indian Student Eligibility Certification Form (ED 506 Form) to document eligible Indian students; however, BIE schools may use either the Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) count or the ED 506 Form count to verify their Indian student counts. Applicants must protect the privacy of all individual data collected and only report aggregated data to the Secretary.
Applicants that verify their Indian student count with the ED 506 Form must document their Indian student counts by completing the following: (1) Each year, the applicant must verify there is a valid ED 506 Form for each Indian child included in the count; (2) all ED 506 Forms included in the count must be completed, signed, and dated by the parent, and be on file; (3) the applicant must maintain a copy of the student enrollment roster(s) covering the same period of time indicated in the application as the “count period”; and (4) each Indian child included in the count must be listed on the LEA's enrollment roster(s) for at least one day during the count period.
BIE schools that enter an ISEP count to verify their Indian student count must use the most current Indian student count certified by the BIE.
Once an Indian child is determined to be eligible to be counted for such grant award, the applicant must maintain a record of such determination and must not require a new or duplicate determination or form to be made for such child for a subsequent application for a grant under this subpart.
Applicants must also indicate the time span for the project objectives and corresponding activities and services for AI/AN students. Applicants can choose to set objectives that remain the same for up to four years in order to facilitate data collection and enhance long-term planning.
In EASIE Part II, all applicants must—
(1) Select the type of program being submitted as either regular formula grant program, formula grant project consolidated with a title I schoolwide program, or integration of services under section 6116 of the ESEA;
(2) Select the grade levels offered by the LEA or BIE school;
(3) Identify, from a list of possible Department grant programs (
(4) Describe the professional development opportunities that will be provided as part of your coordination of services to ensure that teachers and other school professionals who are
(5) Provide information on how the State assessment data of all Indian students (not just those served) are used. Indicate how you plan to disseminate information to the Indian community, parent committee, and Indian Tribes whose children are served by the LEA and how assessment data from the previous school year (SY) were used, as required by section 6114(6)(C) of the ESEA;
(6) Indicate when a public hearing was held for SY 2018;
(7) For an applicant that is an LEA, BIE school, or a consortium of LEAs or BIE schools, describe the process the applicant used to meaningfully collaborate with Indian Tribes located in the community in a timely, active, and ongoing manner in the development of the comprehensive program and the actions taken as a result of such collaboration;
(8) Identify specific project objectives that will further the goal of providing culturally responsive education for AI/AN students to meet their academic needs and help them meet State achievement standards, and identify the data sources that will be used to measure progress towards meeting project objectives;
(9) For an LEA that selects a schoolwide application, identify how the use of such funds in a schoolwide program will produce benefits to Indian students that would not be achieved if the funds were not used in a schoolwide program;
(10) Submit a program budget based on the estimated grant amount that the EASIE system calculates from the Indian student count you submitted in EASIE Part I. After the initial grant amounts are determined, additional funds may become available due to such circumstances as withdrawn applications or reduction in an applicant's student count. An applicant whose award amount increases or decreases more than $5,000 must submit a revised budget prior to receiving its grant award but will not need to re-certify its application. If an applicant's award amount increases or decreases by less than $5,000, a budget update is not
(11) As required by section 427 of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), describe the steps the applicant proposes to take to ensure equitable access to, and participation in, the project or activity to be conducted with such assistance, by addressing the special needs of students, teachers, and other program beneficiaries in order to overcome barriers to equitable participation, including barriers based on gender, race, color, national origin, disability, and age; and
(12) If needed, provide additional comments to assist OIE in the review of the application.
• You do not have access to the internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload documents to the EASIE system; and
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date for EASIE Part I (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail, fax, or email a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you email the written statement, it must be sent no later than two weeks before the application deadline date to the person listed under
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Paulette Davis, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Indian Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3W227, Washington, DC 20202–6335. FAX: (202) 205–0606.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline dates for both EASIE Part I and Part II, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Indian Education, Attention: CFDA Number 84.060A, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3W227, Washington, DC 20202–6335.
You 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 you mail your 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, you should check with your local post office.
We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date for EASIE Part I or Part II.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline dates for both EASIE Part I and Part II, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Indian Education, Attention: CFDA Number 84.060A, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3W227, Washington, DC 20202–6335.
The program office accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You 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 program under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The program office will mail you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should contact the program office at (202) 260–3774.
1.
2.
3.
(b) You must submit an annual performance report (APR) using the EDFacts System Portal at
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may approve a data collection period for a grant for a period of up to 72 months after the end of the project period and may provide a grantee with additional funding for the sole purpose of collecting, analyzing, and reporting performance measurement data regarding the project.
4.
5.
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 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.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
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:
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of CA Flats Solar 150, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is February 15, 2018.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee (FRRCC) is in the public interest and is necessary in connection with the performance of EPA's duties. Accordingly, the FRRCC will be renewed for an additional two-year period. The purpose of the FRRCC is to provide advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on environmental issues and policies that are of importance to agriculture and rural communities. Inquiries may be directed to Hema Subramanian, Designated Federal Officer for FRRCC, U.S. EPA, (Mail Code 1 101A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces EPA's final order for the amendments to terminate uses, voluntarily requested by the registrant and accepted by the Agency, of products containing dicloran (DCNA), pursuant to section 6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended. This termination order follows a March 16, 2016
The amendments are valid February 1, 2018.
Patricia Biggio, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 347–0547; fax number: (703) 308–7070; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0265. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at
This termination order follows a
This notice announces the amendments to delete uses, as requested by the sole registrant, of products registered under section 3 of FIFRA. These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number in Table 1 of this unit.
Table 2 of this unit includes the name and address of record for the registrant of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed above.
During the public comment period provided, EPA received seven comments in response to the
Six of the seven comments were from growers outside of the U.S. that supported the continued use of DCNA. In addition, the Agency also received a single comment from the registrant (Gowan) which proposed the conversion of dicloran crop residue tolerances to import tolerances based on conclusions from previous DCNA risk assessments and Pesticide Data Program (PDP) data from 2004 to 2014. The Agency has reviewed these comments and the Agency's formal response is available at regulation.gov in the DCNA reregistration docket EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0265.
Per the Agency's response, the 2006 dietary risk assessment concluded that dietary exposure from all currently registered crops does not exceed the Agency's level of concern. In addition, following a review of available monitoring data, EPA concluded that the small number of samples with detectable residues in monitoring data and the low residue levels found in those samples support Gowan's claim that imported commodities are not likely to pose risks of concern. The monitoring data also supports Gowan's assertion that the subject commodities will not likely be contaminated with residue levels over tolerance. Therefore, the Agency does not expect that the use of DCNA on the subject commodities will create a risk of concern. As such, the Agency supports retaining the DCNA tolerances for import of these commodities to avoid potential trade barriers with countries that use Codex Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) or have DCNA tolerances established for these commodities, and will convert the existing tolerances to import tolerances in a separate action.
Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f), EPA hereby approves the requested amendments to terminate uses of DCNA for registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit III. Accordingly, the Agency hereby orders that the product registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit III. are amended to terminate use on apricots, chrysanthemums, conifers, gladiolus, grapes, greenhouse cucumbers, greenhouse lettuce, greenhouse rhubarb, greenhouse tomato, nectarines, peaches, plums/prunes, roses, and sweet cherries. The effective date of the amendments to terminate affected uses that are subject of this notice is February 1, 2018. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit III. in a manner inconsistent with any of the provisions for disposition of existing stocks set forth in Unit VII. will be a violation of FIFRA.
Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the
Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and
The registrant may continue to sell and distribute existing stocks of products listed in Table 1 until February 1, 2019, which is 1 year after publication of this termination order in the
Persons other than the registrant may sell, distribute, or use existing stocks of products listed in Table 1 of Unit III until supplies are exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the deleted uses.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of final Order on petitions to object to air permit.
This document announces that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator has responded to two citizen petitions asking the EPA to object to the proposed issuance of two Authority to Construct/Certificate of Conformity documents (Permits) issued by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD). Specifically, the Administrator has denied the June 24, 2015 petitions (Petitions) submitted by the Climate Change Law Foundation to object to SJVUAPCD's proposed issuance of the Permits for the Linn Operating, Inc.—Fairfield and Ethyl D Leases located in Kern County, California.
You may review copies of the final Order, the Petitions, and other supporting information at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.
The EPA requests that you contact the individual listed in the
Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–3534,
SJVUAPCD Rule 2201 affords the EPA a 45-day period to review and object to, as appropriate, a proposed permit. Rule 2201 § 5.9.1. If the EPA does not object, Rule 2201 allows any person to petition the EPA, within 60 days, to object to the proposed permit. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period, or the grounds for the issue arose after this period.
The EPA received the Petitions dated June 24, 2015, requesting that the EPA object to the proposed issuance of the Permits to Linn Operating, Inc. for the addition of three new gas-fired steam generators on its Fairfield lease, and one new gas-fired steam generator on its Ethyl D lease, both located in Kern County, California. The substantive claims raised in the two Petitions were essentially identical. Therefore, the EPA responded to both Petitions in a single order. In summary, the Petitions claimed that certain emission reductions had not been included in an EPA-approved attainment plan and thus could not be used, and that certain emission reduction credits used in the permitting process were invalid.
On October 6, 2017, the Administrator issued an order denying the Petitions. The EPA's rationale for denying the claims raised in the petitions are described in the Order.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice; request for public comment.
In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), Region 2, of a proposed cost recovery settlement agreement pursuant to CERCLA, with Motor Components, LLC (“Motor Components”) and Honeywell International, Inc. (“Honeywell”) (collectively, “Settling Parties”) for the Facet Enterprises, Inc. Superfund Site (“Site”), located in Elmira Heights, Chemung County, New York.
Comments must be submitted on or before March 5, 2018.
The proposed settlement is available for public inspection at EPA Region 2 offices at 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007–1866. Comments should reference the Facet Enterprises, Inc. Superfund Site, Elmira Heights, Chemung County, New York, Index No. II–CERCLA–02–2017–2037. To request a copy of the proposed settlement agreement, please contact the EPA employee identified below.
Lauren Charney, Attorney, Office of Regional Counsel, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10007–1866. email:
The Settling Parties agree to reimburse EPA for past response costs paid at or in connection with the Site as set forth: (a) Within 30 days of the effective date, Honeywell shall pay $550,000, plus interest accrued, and (b) Motor Components shall pay $1,300,000, plus accrued interest in up to four
The settlement includes a covenant by EPA not to sue or to take administrative action against the Settling Party/Parties pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), with regard to the response costs related to the work at the Site enumerated in the settlement agreement. For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the settlement. EPA will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. EPA's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007–1866.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public teleconference of the SAB Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee augmented for the review of two EPA draft assessments; Toxicological Review for Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (ETBE) (
The public teleconference will be held on two dates: Thursday, March 22, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. (Eastern time) and Tuesday, March 27, 2018, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern time).
The public teleconference will be held by telephone only.
Any member of the public who wants further information concerning this meeting notice may contact Dr. Shaunta Hill-Hammond, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), via phone at (202) 564–3343, or email at
EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) requested that the SAB conduct a peer review of the two EPA draft assessments. The EPA SAB Staff Office augmented the SAB CAAC with subject matter experts, to provide advice to the Administrator through the chartered SAB regarding these assessments. The CAAC augmented for ETBE/tBA Panel convened a public face-to-face meeting on August 15–17, 2017, to deliberate on the peer review charge questions. The Panel will meet via a public teleconference to discuss its draft peer review report and to hear and consider public comments. The SAB CAAC augmented for ETBE and tBA Panel will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of final Order on petition to object to air permit.
This document announces that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator has responded to a citizen petition asking the EPA to object to the proposed issuance of an Authority to Construct/Certificate of Conformity (Permit) issued by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD). Specifically, on December 21, 2016, the then Administrator granted Part V of the December 16, 2014 petition (Petition) and on July 28, 2017, the current Administrator denied Parts II and III of the Petition submitted by the Association of Irritated Residents, Center for Biological Diversity, and the Sierra Club to object to SJVUAPCD's proposed issuance of the Permit for the Alon USA—Bakersfield Refinery located in Kern County, California.
You may review copies of the final Orders, the Petition, and other supporting information at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.
The EPA requests that you contact the individual listed in the
Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–3534,
SJVUAPCD Rule 2201 affords the EPA a 45-day period to review and object to, as appropriate, a proposed permit. Rule 2201 § 5.9.1. If the EPA does not object, Rule 2201 allows any person to petition the EPA, within 60 days, to object to the proposed permit. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period, or the grounds for the issue arose after this period.
The EPA received the Petition dated December 16, 2014, requesting that the EPA object to the proposed issuance of the Permit to Alon USA—Bakersfield Refining, for modifications to its petroleum products refinery and gasoline terminal, located in Kern County, California. The Petition contained five different bases for its request for an objection. Pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement, noticed on October 21, 2016 (81 FR 72804), the EPA issued a final Order responding to the claims made in Part V of the Petition on December 21, 2016, and a second Order responding to the claims made in Parts II and III of the Petition on July 28, 2017.
On December 21, 2016, the then Administrator issued an order granting Part V of the Petition. On March 16, 2017, SJVUAPCD responded to the December 21, 2016 objection. On July 28, 2017, the current Administrator issued an order denying Parts II and III of the Petition. EPA's rationale for granting the Petition in part and denying the Petition in part are described in the Orders.
Farm Credit Administration.
Notice, regular meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act, of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board).
The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on February 8, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business.
Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102–5090. Submit attendance requests via email to
Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883–4009, TTY (703) 883–4056,
Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available) and parts will be closed to the public. Please send an email to
* Session Closed-Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(8) and (9).
The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on the subjects listed below on Tuesday, January 30, 2018 which is scheduled to commence at 10:30 a.m. in Room TW–C305, at 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC.
The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. In your request, include a description of the accommodation you will need and a way we can contact you if we need more information. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an email to:
Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from the Office of Media Relations, (202) 418–0500; TTY 1–888–835–5322. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the internet from the FCC Live web page at
For a fee this meeting can be viewed live over George Mason University's Capitol Connection. The Capitol Connection also will carry the meeting
Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.
999 E Street NW, Washington, DC.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.
Matters relating to internal personnel decisions, or internal rules and practices.
Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer Telephone: (202) 694–1220
On January 23, 2018, the Commission resumed normal operations and offices are now open and accessible. Time has been extended for this proceeding. Replies and any further submissions to the record are now due February 1, 2018.
By the Commission.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the filing date of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP); Notice of Charter Amendment which was published in the
The amended filing date should read as follows: November 9, 2017.
Stephanie Thomas, ACIP Committee Management Specialist, CDC, NCIRD, email
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Phase II is an initiative, funded by the Children's Bureau (CB) within ACF, that will support implementation grants for interventions designed to intervene with youth who have experienced time in foster care and are most likely to have a challenging transition into adulthood, including homelessness and unstable housing experiences. CB awarded six implementation grants (Phase II) in September 2015.
During the implementation phase, organizations will conduct a range of activities to fine-tune their comprehensive service model, determine whether their model is being implemented as intended, and develop plans to evaluate the model under a potential future funding opportunity (Phase III). During Phase II, ACF will engage a contractor to: Conduct a cross-site process evaluation. Data collected for the process evaluation will be used to assess grantees' organizational capacity to implement and evaluate the model interventions and to monitor each grantee's progress toward achieving the goals of the implementation period.
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.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Chap 35), 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: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
Administration for Community Living (ACL), HHS.
Notice.
The Administration for Community Living is announcing that the proposed collection of information listed above has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance as required under section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This 30-Day notice collects comments on the information collection requirements related to ACL's Evidence-Based Falls Prevention Program's Proposed Extension with Changes of a Currently Approved Collection.
Submit written comments on the collection of information by March 5, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information by:
(a)
(b) fax to 202–395–5806, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ACL; or
(c) by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, New Executive Office Bldg., 725 17th St. NW, Rm. 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ACL.
Shannon Skowronski at
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
The Evidence-Based Falls Prevention Programs is a cooperative agreement financed through the Prevention and Public Health Fund (PPHF), most recently with FY 2017 PPHF funds. The statutory authority for cooperative agreements under the current program announcement is contained in the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 300u–2 (Community Programs) and 300u–3 (Information Programs); and Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, Public Law 115–31, Title II; and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. 300u–11 (Prevention and Public Health Fund).
The Evidence-Based Falls Prevention Programs support a national resource center and award competitive grants to implement evidence-based community programs that have been proven to reduce the incidence of falls for older adults. The programs also identify sustainable funding mechanisms for these programs via the national resource center, promote the importance of falls prevention strategies, and provide public education about the risks of falls and ways to prevent them.
OMB approval of the existing set of Falls Prevention data collection tools (OMB Control Number, 0985–0039) expires on 01/31/2018. This data collection continues to be necessary for monitoring program operations and outcomes. ACL/AoA proposes to use the following tools: (1) Semi-annual performance reports to monitor grantee progress; (2) a Host Organization Data form to record the location of agencies that sponsor programs that will allow mapping of the delivery infrastructure; and (3) a set of tools used to collect information at each program completed by the program leaders (Program Information Cover Sheet and Attendance Log), a Participant Information Form completed by each participant, and a Post Program Survey to be completed by a random sample of participants. ACL/AoA intends to continue using an online data entry system for the program and participant survey data.
As required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), a 60-Day notice was published in the
Based on this collective feedback, the following modifications to the currently approved forms are being proposed:
• On the Participant Information Form:
1. Question #8 on currently approved and proposed Participant Information Form: Additional chronic conditions have been added to the list of options: Cancer; high blood pressure/hypertension; osteoporosis; and Parkinson's Disease.
2. Question #8 on currently approved and proposed Participant Information Form: None (no chronic conditions) has been removed from the list of options.
3. Question #11 on currently approved and proposed Participant Information Form: Two sub-questions have been added to assess the:
4. Question #15 on the Participant Information Form has been added to examine home modifications
5. Question #16 on the Participant Information Form has been added to examine activity level
On the Post Program Survey:
1. Question #2 on the currently approved and proposed Post Program Survey: Two sub-questions have been added to assess the:
2. Question #4 on the currently approved Post Program Survey (“Has this program reduced your fear of falling?”) has been
3. Question #7 on currently approved Post Program Survey and Question #6 on the proposed form:
4. Question #8 on currently approved Post Program Survey and Question #7 on the proposed form:
5. Question #8 on currently approved Post Program Survey and Question #7 on the proposed form:
6. Question #8 on the Participant Information Form has been added to examine home modifications
7. Question #9 on the Participant Information Form has been added to examine activity level
On the Program Information Cover Sheet:
1. Question #6 has been revised to improve clarity to read “Session 0/Introductory Session”.
2. Question #7 has been revised to change wording to “Name of program offered.”
The proposed Falls Prevention Data Collection Tools can be found at ACL's Website at:
The total estimated burden is 4,345 hours per year. ACL/AoA estimates the burden of this collection of information as 288 hours for project staff, 1,435 hours for local agency staff, and 2,622 hours for individuals.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop.
The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA, the Agency, or we) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), in co-sponsorship with the International Society of Pharmacometrics (ISoP), is announcing a public workshop entitled “Best Practices in Modeling and Simulation for Oncology Products.” The purpose of the meeting is to discuss “best practices” in integrating pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, efficacy, and safety data into models to best inform oncology drug development, evaluate disease- and mechanism-specific early endpoints to predict long-term efficacy, and discuss potential regulatory implications of model-informed decisions in drug development. This workshop is also being conducted to satisfy one of FDA's performance goals included in the sixth reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA VI), part of the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017 (FDARA), to hold a series of workshops related to model-informed drug development (MIDD).
The public workshop will be held on February 1, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Eastern Time. See the
The public workshop will be held at the FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503, B and C), Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002. Entrance for public workshop participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to:
Jeannette Dinin, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 2108, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 240–402–4978, email:
Under FDARA, FDA agreed, in accordance with section I of the PDUFA VI Performance Goals, Ensuring the Effectiveness of the Human Drug Review, part J, Enhancing Regulatory Decision Tools to Support Drug Development and Review, to convene a series of workshops to identify best practices for MIDD (
Over the past few decades, there has been extensive investment in oncology drug discovery and development. Despite greater understanding of disease biology and drug mechanisms of action, further progress in model-informed strategies is needed to continue advancements in oncology drug development. Innovations in clinical trial design utilizing more informative endpoints could help bring more effective treatment options to cancer patients faster by accelerating development of effective new drugs and reducing failure rates in expensive late-phase development.
As more effective and complex combination strategies and novel targets for cancer treatment evolve, exploring more informative and predictive endpoints to assess treatment response
The objectives of the workshop are to:
1. Discuss “best practices” in integrating human pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, efficacy, and safety data into models that best inform oncology drug development.
2. Describe novel imaging techniques and diagnostic and predictive biomarkers that may be utilized in oncology drug development.
3. Describe disease- and mechanism-specific early endpoints to predict long-term efficacy.
4. Evaluate the potential to shift from traditional RECIST-based endpoints such as Overall Response Rate (ORR) and Progression Free Survival (PFS) to modified RECIST approaches (
5. Discuss potential regulatory implications of model-informed decisions in drug development, including, model-based target identification, dose/exposure justification based on preclinical evidence, dose selection for first-in-human trials, quality by design, early clinical study design, dose finding/titration, confirmatory trials, product labeling, and post-marketing studies.
A detailed agenda will be posted on the following website in advance of the workshop:
Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority given to early registrants. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited; therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization. Registrants will receive confirmation when they have been accepted. If time and space permit, onsite registration on the day of the public workshop will be provided beginning at 8 a.m.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Yvonne Knight (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for CORLANOR and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before April 2, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301–796–3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98–417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100–670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product CORLANOR (ivabradine hydrochloride). CORLANOR is indicated to reduce the risk of hospitalization for worsening heart failure in patients with stable, symptomatic chronic heart failure with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 35% who are in sinus rhythm with resting heart rate ≥ 70 beats per minute and either are on maximally tolerated doses of beta-blockers or have a contraindication to beta-blocker use. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for CORLANOR (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,879,842 and 7,867,996) from Les Laboratoires Servier, and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated July 28, 2016, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of CORLANOR represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for CORLANOR is 293 days. Of this time, 0 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 293 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 292 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
HRSA is publishing this notice of petitions received under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the program), as required by the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended. While the Secretary of HHS (the Secretary) is named as the respondent in all proceedings brought by the filing of petitions for compensation under the Program, the United States Court of Federal Claims is charged by statute with responsibility for considering and acting upon the petitions.
For information about requirements for filing petitions, and the program in general, contact Lisa L. Reyes, Acting Clerk, United States Court of Federal Claims, 717 Madison Place NW, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 357–6400. For information on HRSA's role in the program, contact the Director, National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 08N146B, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443–6593, or visit our website at:
The program provides a system of no-fault compensation for certain individuals who have been injured by specified childhood vaccines. Subtitle 2 of Title XXI of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa–10
A petition may be filed with respect to injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions, and deaths resulting from vaccines described in the Vaccine Injury Table (the table) set forth at 42 CFR 100.3. This table lists for each covered childhood vaccine the conditions that may lead to compensation and, for each condition, the time period for occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of significant aggravation after vaccine administration. Compensation may also be awarded for conditions not listed in the Table and for conditions that are manifested outside the time periods specified in the table, but only if the petitioner shows that the condition was caused by one of the listed vaccines.
Section 2112(b)(2) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa–12(b)(2), requires that “[w]ithin 30 days after the Secretary receives service of any petition filed under section 2111, the Secretary shall publish notice of such petition in the
Section 2112(b)(2) also provides that the special master “shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to submit relevant, written information” relating to the following:
1. The existence of evidence “that there is not a preponderance of the evidence that the illness, disability, injury, condition, or death described in the petition is due to factors unrelated to the administration of the vaccine described in the petition,” and
2. Any allegation in a petition that the petitioner either:
a. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition not set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table but which was caused by” one of the vaccines referred to in the Table, or
b. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table the first symptom or manifestation of the onset or significant aggravation of which did not occur within the time period set forth in the Table but which was caused by a vaccine” referred to in the Table.
In accordance with Section 2112(b)(2), all interested persons may submit written information relevant to the issues described above in the case of the petitions listed below. Any person choosing to do so should file an original and three (3) copies of the information with the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims at the address listed above (under the heading
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel, February 16, 2018, 1:00 p.m. to February 16, 2018, 4:00 p.m., National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2W200, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
The meeting notice is amended to change the date of the meeting from February 16, 2018 to February 15, 2018. The location and time remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, January 23, 2018, 1:00 p.m. to January 23, 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 March 7, 2018 at 1:00 and end at 3:30. 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 following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Neuroscience of Aging Review Committee, February 1, 2018, 8:00 a.m. to February 2, 2018, 2:00 p.m., Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814 which was published in the
The meeting notice is amended to change the meeting location from Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814 to Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Rd., Rockville MD 20852. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
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.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Macromolecular Structure and Function C Study Section, February 8, 2018, 8:00 a.m. to February 9, 2018, 5:00 p.m., The Darcy Hotel, 1515 Rhode Island Avenue, Washington, DC 20005 which was published in the
The meeting will be held February 8, 2018 at 8:00 a.m. and end 8:00 p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Skeletal Muscle and Exercise Physiology Study Section, February 8, 2018, 8:00 a.m. to February 9, 2018, 6:00 p.m., Hilton Long Beach and Executive Center, 701 West Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach, CA 90831 which was published in the
The meeting will be held on February 7, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. and end February 8, 2018 9:00 p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Nanotechnology Study Section, February 8, 2018, 8:00 a.m. to February 9, 2018, 5:00 p.m., Baltimore Marriott Waterfront, 700 Aliceanna Street, Baltimore, MD 21202 which was published in the
The meeting will be held on February 7, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. and end February 9, 2018 at 5:00. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to Public Law 92–463, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Advisory Committee for Women's Services (ACWS) on February 14, 2018.
The meeting will include discussions on assessing SAMHSA's current strategies related to women experiencing homelessness with behavioral health needs, and SAMHSA's strategies related to women in the criminal justice system with behavioral health needs. Additionally, the ACWS will be speaking with the Assistant Secretary of Mental Health and Substance Use regarding priorities and directions around behavioral health services and access for women and children.
The meeting is open to the public and will be held at SAMHSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD, 20857, in Conference Room 5E29. Attendance by the public will be limited to space available. Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions should be forwarded to the contact person (below) by February 5, 2018. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled at the conclusion of the meeting. Individuals interested in making oral presentations are encouraged to notify the contact person on or before February 5, 2018. Five minutes will be allotted for each presentation.
The meeting may be accesed via telephone. To attend on site, obtain the call-in number and access code, submit written or brief oral comments, or request special accommodations for persons with disabilities, please register on-line at
Substantive meeting information and a roster of ACWS members may be obtained either by accessing the SAMHSA Committees' Web
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notifies federal agencies of the laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) currently certified to meet the standards of the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines).
A notice listing all currently HHS-certified laboratories and IITFs is published in the
If any laboratory or IITF has withdrawn from the HHS National Laboratory Certification Program (NLCP) during the past month, it will be listed at the end and will be omitted from the monthly listing thereafter.
This notice is also available on the internet at
Giselle Hersh, Division of Workplace Programs, SAMHSA/CSAP, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 16N03A, Rockville, Maryland 20857; 240–276–2600 (voice).
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notifies federal agencies of the laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) currently certified to meet the standards of the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines). The Mandatory Guidelines were first published in the
The Mandatory Guidelines were initially developed in accordance with
To become certified, an applicant laboratory or IITF must undergo three rounds of performance testing plus an on-site inspection. To maintain that certification, a laboratory or IITF must participate in a quarterly performance testing program plus undergo periodic, on-site inspections.
Laboratories and IITFs in the applicant stage of certification are not to be considered as meeting the minimum requirements described in the HHS Mandatory Guidelines. A HHS-certified laboratory or IITF must have its letter of certification from HHS/SAMHSA (formerly: HHS/NIDA), which attests that it has met minimum standards.
In accordance with the Mandatory Guidelines dated January 23, 2017 (82 FR 7920), the following HHS-certified laboratories and IITFs meet the minimum standards to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens:
* The Standards Council of Canada (SCC) voted to end its Laboratory Accreditation Program for Substance Abuse (LAPSA) effective May 12, 1998. Laboratories certified through that program were accredited to conduct forensic urine drug testing as required by U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. As of that date, the certification of those accredited Canadian laboratories will continue under DOT authority. The responsibility for conducting quarterly performance testing plus periodic on-site inspections of those LAPSA-accredited laboratories was transferred to the U.S. HHS, with the HHS' NLCP contractor continuing to have an active role in the performance testing and laboratory inspection processes. Other Canadian laboratories wishing to be considered for the NLCP may apply directly to the NLCP contractor just as U.S. laboratories do.
Upon finding a Canadian laboratory to be qualified, HHS will recommend that DOT certify the laboratory (
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 March 5, 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, Records 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
Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP), National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
60-Day notice and request for comments; revised collection, 1670–0013.
DHS NPPD IP will submit the following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Partnerships between the U.S. Government and the private sector at times necessitates the sharing of classified information. The Private Sector Clearance Program (PSCP), Cooperative Research And Development Agreement (CRADA), and Classified Critical Infrastructure Protection Program (CCIPP) Request Form facilitates this sharing by sponsoring security clearances for certain private sector partners.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until April 2, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS–2017–0061, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through relevant websites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. If you send an email comment, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comments that may be made available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Quintin Whitaker at 703–235–9485 or at
Partnerships between the U.S. Government and the private sector at times necessitate the sharing of classified information. The PSCP and Cyber Information Sharing and Collaboration Program (CISCP) facilitate this sharing by sponsoring security clearances for certain members of each sector based on either their membership on a Sector Coordinating Council (SCC)/association or their infrastructure protection job-related duties. In order to begin the process of approving a nominee to participate in the clearance program, DHS collects the nominee's employment information and Personally Identifiable Information (PII). The nominee's association/SCC membership or employment information is reviewed for approval, and his or her PII is input into the Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) system, the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) secure portal for investigation processing.
The U.S. Government is authorized to ask for this information under Section 201 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107–296, 6 U.S.C. 121), and Executive Orders 12968, 13526, and 13549, which authorize the collection of this information.
The PSCP is designed to facilitate access to security clearances for private sector officials involved in the infrastructure protection mission. The CISCP is designed to facilitate access to security clearances for private sector entities involved in cybersecurity information sharing related to the National Cybersecurity Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) via CRADAs and for individuals via the CCIPP. CRADAs are agreements between the U.S. government and private entities for joint research and development efforts, and can be used to create bi-directional information sharing frameworks between DHS and private sector entities. The CCIPP, commonly referred to as the “Hybrid,” is a tool through which DHS shares classified cybersecurity-related information with critical infrastructure partners. These partners are subject matter experts within specific industries and have specialized knowledge not available within DHS. Private citizens do not receive monetary compensation for their time. DHS has created these programs to sponsor clearances for these individuals who are not employed by or contracted with another Federal agency (the traditional means of obtaining a clearance) and must have clearances.
Program changes require a revision of the existing collection. These changes include: Updating the title of the collection, the form being used by CISCP, and updates to the form itself. The form will be used by the CISCP in the same manner as the PSCP to sponsor private sector entities and individuals for security clearances. The CISCP will increase the burden totals by 360 responses, 60 burden hours, and $6,155 annual burden cost. For the PSCP, the burden estimates have decreased by 200 responses, 33 burden hours and $706 annual burden cost based on actual responses received. As a result, the total burden estimates will increase overall by 160 responses, 27 burden hours, $5,448 annual burden costs.
The changes to the form itself include: adding CRADA and CCIPP to the title; adding drop down capabilities relevant for the CRADA and the CCIPP, adding justification guidance to the back of the form, and updating the wording of the field titles and instructions to improve clarity. The changes to the form itself will not change the burden estimates as the only field being added is a menu to distinguish the program type.
The annual government cost for the collection has increased by $242,850 due to the addition of the CISCP and has increased by $91,998 for the PSCP due to updated wage rates. As a result, the annual government cost has increased by $334,848.
This is a revised information collection.
OMB is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, we) are proposing a new information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 2, 2018.
Send your comments on the information collection request (ICR) by mail to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803 (mail); or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Madonna L. Baucum, Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the Service; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Service enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Service 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 March 16, 1934, Congress passed, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed, the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718–718k). Popularly known as the Duck Stamp Act, it required all waterfowl hunters 16 years or older to buy a stamp annually. The revenue generated was originally earmarked for the Department of Agriculture, but 5 years later was transferred to the Department of the Interior and the Service.
In the years since its enactment, the Federal Duck Stamp Program has become one of the most popular and successful conservation programs ever initiated. Today, some 1.5 million stamps are sold each year, and as of 2017, Federal Duck Stamps have generated more than $1 billion for the preservation of more than 6 million acres of waterfowl habitat in the United States. Numerous other birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, and amphibians have similarly prospered because of habitat protection made possible by the program. An estimated one-third of the Nation's endangered and threatened species find food or shelter in refuges preserved by Duck Stamp funds. Moreover, the protected wetlands help dissipate storms, purify water supplies, store flood water, and nourish fish hatchlings important for sport and commercial fishermen.
Jay N. “Ding” Darling, a nationally known political cartoonist for the Des Moines Register and a noted hunter and wildlife conservationist, designed the first Federal Duck Stamp at President Roosevelt's request. In subsequent years, noted wildlife artists submitted designs. The first Federal Duck Stamp Contest was opened in 1949 to any U.S. artist who wished to enter, and 65 artists submitted a total of 88 design entries. Since then, the contest has been known as the Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Art (Duck Stamp) Contest and has attracted large numbers of entrants.
The Duck Stamp Contest (50 CFR part 91) remains the only art competition of its kind sponsored by the U.S. Government. The Secretary of the Interior appoints a panel of noted art, waterfowl, and philatelic authorities to select each year's winning design. Winners receive no compensation for the work, except a pane of their stamps, but winners may sell prints of their designs, which are sought by hunters, conservationists, and art collectors.
The Service selects five or fewer species of waterfowl each year; each entry must employ one of the Service-designated species as the dominant feature (defined as being in the foreground and clearly the focus of attention). Designs may also include hunting dogs, hunting scenes, waterfowl decoys, national wildlife refuges as the background of habitat scenes, non-eligible species, or other scenes that depict uses of the stamp for sporting, conservation, and collecting purposes. Entries may be in any media EXCEPT photography or computer-generated art. Designs must be the contestants' original hand-drawn creation and may not be copied or duplicated from previously published art, including photographs, or from images in any format published on the internet.
The Federal Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program (Junior Duck Stamp Program) began in 1989 as an extension of the Migratory Bird Conservation and Hunting Stamp. The national Junior Duck Stamp art contest started in 1993, and the first stamp design was selected from entries from eight participating states. The program was recognized by Congress with the 1994 enactment of the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act (16 U.S.C. 719). All 50 states, Washington, DC, and 2 of the U.S. Territories currently participate in the annual contest.
The Junior Duck Stamp Program introduces wetland and waterfowl conservation to students in kindergarten through high school. It crosses cultural, ethnic, social, and geographic boundaries to teach greater awareness and guide students in exploring our nation's natural resources. It is the Service's premier conservation education initiative.
The Junior Duck Stamp Program includes a dynamic art- and science-based curriculum. This non-traditional pairing of subjects brings new interest to both the sciences and the arts. The program teaches students across the nation conservation through the arts, using scientific and wildlife observation principles to encourage visual communication about what they learn. Four curriculum guides, with activities and resources, were developed for use
Modeled after the Federal Duck Stamp Contest, the annual Junior Duck Stamp Art and Conservation Message Contest (Junior Duck Stamp Contest) was developed as a visual assessment of a student's learning and progression. The Junior Duck Stamp Contest encourages partnerships among Federal and State government agencies, nongovernment organizations, businesses, and volunteers to help recognize and honor thousands of teachers and students throughout the United States for their participation in conservation-related activities. Since 2000, the contest has received more than 478,000 entries.
The winning artwork from the national art contest serves as the design for the Junior Duck Stamp, which the Service produces annually. This $5 stamp has become a much sought after collector's item. One hundred percent of the revenue from the sale of Junior Duck stamps goes to support recognition and environmental education activities for students who participate in the program. More than $1.25 million in Junior Duck Stamp proceeds have been used to provide recognition, incentives, and scholarships to participating students, teachers, and schools. The Program continues to educate youth about land stewardship and the importance of connecting to their natural worlds. Several students who have participated in the Junior Duck Stamp Program have gone on to become full-time wildlife artists and conservation professionals; many attribute their interest and success to their early exposure to the Junior Duck Stamp Program.
The Duck Stamp Contest is open to all U.S. citizens, nationals, and resident aliens who are at least 18 years of age by June 1. Individuals enrolled in kindergarten through grade 12 may participate in the Junior Duck Stamp Contest. All eligible students are encouraged to participate in the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program annual art and conservation message contest as part of the program curriculum through public, private, and homeschools, as well as through nonformal educational experiences such as those found in scouting, art studios, and nature centers.
Each entry in the Duck Stamp Contest requires a completed entry form and an entry fee. Information required on the entry form includes:
• “Display, Participation & Reproduction Rights Agreement” certification form;
• Basic contact information (name, address, phone numbers, and email address);
• Date of birth (to verify eligibility);
• Species portrayed and medium used; and
• Name of hometown newspaper (for press coverage).
Each entry in the Junior Duck Stamp Contest requires a completed entry form that requests:
• Basic contact information (name, address, phone numbers, and email address);
• Age (to verify eligibility);
• Parent's name and contact information;
• Whether the student has a Social Security or VISA immigration number (to verify eligibility to receive prizes);
• Whether the student is a foreign exchange student;
• Grade of student (so they may be judged with their peers);
• The title, species, medium used, and conservation message associated with the drawing;
• Basic contact information for their teacher and school (name, address, phone numbers, and email address); and
• Certification of authenticity.
Students in Grades 7–12 and all national level students are also required to include citations for any resources they used to develop their designs. We use this information to verify that the student has not plagiarized or copied someone else's work. The Service also translates entry forms into other appropriate languages to increase the understanding of the rules and what the parents and students are signing.
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
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), we, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the receipt and availability of a proposed habitat conservation plan and environmental assessment related to an application for a permit associated with relocation of a 1.3-mile segment of Dude Ranch Road (project) located in Polk County, Florida. If issued, the permit would authorize take of the threatened sand skink and blue-tailed mole skink incidental to project construction. We invite the public to comment on these documents.
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by March 5, 2018.
• Atlanta Regional Office, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, GA 30345.
• South Florida Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960.
Mr. David Dell, Regional HCP Coordinator, at the Atlanta Regional Office (see
Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicants' proposed HCP describes the mitigation and minimization measures proposed to address the impacts to the covered species. Per the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
The EA assesses the likely environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the activities, including the environmental consequences of the no-action alternative, relocation of the roadway segment outside of the proposed footprint, and the proposed action. The proposed action alternative is issuance of the ITP and implementation of the HCP as submitted by the applicant. The applicant anticipates destroying approximately 12.1 acres of occupied sand skink and blue-tailed mole skink habitat incidental to relocation and construction of a 1.3-mile section of Dude Ranch Road in Polk County, Florida. The existing paved two-lane county roadway is being relocated, per permission of Polk County, to allow for sand mining within the existing Dude Ranch Road footprint and lands adjacent to this footprint. The applicant indicates that sand mining in this area would not be financially feasible without relocation of the roadway. Polk County requires the applicant to relocate the roadway segment to maintain access for local residents and the public to the areas adjacent to the project site.
The HCP includes measures to minimize and mitigate impacts to the sand skink and the blue-tailed mole skink resulting from the roadway relocation. To minimize impacts to these species and their habitat, the footprint of the relocated roadway was reduced to the greatest extent practicable. The mitigation proposed by the applicant consists of the purchase of 24.2 credits (equaling 12.1 acres of skink habitat) from the Scrub Conservation Bank (SCB) in Highlands County, Florida. The SCB, which is a Service approved conservation bank, will preserve and manage skink habitat in perpetuity.
We specifically request information, views, and opinions from the public on our proposed Federal action, including identification of any other aspects of or impacts to the human environment not already identified in the EA prepared pursuant to the NEPA regulations at 40 CFR 1506.6. Further, we specifically solicit information regarding the adequacy of the HCP per 50 CFR parts 13 and 17.
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.
Sand skinks and blue-tailed mole skinks historically occurred within xeric uplands throughout the sandy ridges of central Florida. The area encompassed by the ITP application and HCP consists of 12.1 acres of privately owned lands
We will evaluate the ITP application, including the HCP, and any comments we receive to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. We will also evaluate whether a section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP should be issued, as well as conduct an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. We will use the results of this consultation and the above findings in our final analysis to determine whether to issue the ITP. If we determine that the requirements are met, we will issue the ITP number TE21091C–0 for the incidental take of the sand skink and the blue-tailed mole skink to the applicant.
We provide this notice under section 10 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of proposed official filing.
The plats of surveys for the lands described in this notice are scheduled to be officially filed 30 calendar days after the date of this publication in the BLM Montana State Office, Billings, Montana. The surveys, which were executed at the request of the BLM, are necessary for the management of these lands.
A person or party who wishes to protest this decision must file a notice of protest in time for it to be received in the BLM Montana State Office no later than 30 days after the date of this publication.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the BLM Montana State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101, upon required payment. The plats may be viewed at this location at no cost.
Josh Alexander, BLM Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Montana; telephone: (406) 896–5123; email:
The lands surveyed are:
A person or party who wishes to protest an official filing of a plat of survey identified above must file a written notice of protest with the BLM Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Montana at the address listed in the
If a notice of protest of the plat(s) of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing or during the 10 calendar day grace period provided in 43 CFR 4.401(a) and the delay in filing is waived, the official filing of the plat(s) of survey identified in the notice of protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat of survey will not be officially filed until the next business day after all timely protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved.
If a notice of protest is received after the scheduled date of official filing and the 10 calendar day grace period provided in 43 CFR 4.401(a), the notice of protest will be untimely, may not be considered, and may be dismissed.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in a notice of protest or statement of reasons, you should be aware that the documents you submit—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available in their entirety at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 U.S.C. Chapter 3.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of reinstatement.
In accordance with Section 31 of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, Berry Petroleum Company timely filed a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease UTU77328 for lands in Duchesne County, Utah, along with all required rentals and royalties accruing from July 1, 2014, the date of termination. The BLM proposes to reinstate the lease.
The BLM is proposing to reinstate the lease on March 5, 2018.
Kent Hoffman, Deputy State Director, Lands and Minerals, Utah State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84101, phone: 801–539–4063, email:
The lessee has agreed to new lease terms for rental and royalty. The rental for UTU77328 will increase to $5 per acre or fraction thereof and the royalty will increase to 16
The following-described lands in Duchesne County, Utah, include:
The area described contains 1,890.39 acres.
As the lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), the BLM is proposing to reinstate the lease 30 days following publication of this notice, with the effective date of July 1, 2014, subject to the increased rental and royalty rates cited above. The lease is also subject to the following additional new terms and conditions:
(1) No Surface Occupancy Stipulation—Anthro Mountain Habitat Management Area;
(2) Cultural Resources Protection Stipulation;
(3) Threatened and Endangered Species Act Stipulation;
(4) Air Quality Mitigation Measures; and
(5) Federal Flood Risk Management Standard Lease Notice.
Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188) 43 CFR 3108.2–3.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted a review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), as amended, to determine whether termination of the suspended investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission.
Instituted February 1, 2018. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is March 5, 2018. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by April 16, 2018.
Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Charles Smith, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205–3408.
No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117 0016/USITC No. 18–5–405, expiration date June 30, 2020. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436.
Information to Be Provided in Response to This Notice of Institution: As used below, the term “firm” includes any related firms.
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is an interested party under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, including whether your firm/entity is a U.S. grower or packer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the termination of the suspended investigation on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. growers and packers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. grower or packer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the
This proceeding is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted a review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), as amended, to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on folding gift boxes from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission.
Instituted February 1, 2018. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is March 5, 2018. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by April 16, 2018.
Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Charles Smith, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205–3408.
No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117 0016/USITC No. 18–5–404, expiration date June 30, 2020. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436.
Information to Be Provided in Response to This Notice of Institution: As used below, the term “firm” includes any related firms.
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is an interested party under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, including whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping duty order on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the
This proceeding is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted a review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), as amended, to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on certain activated carbon from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission.
Instituted February 1, 2018. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is March 5, 2018. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by April 16, 2018.
Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Charles Smith, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205–3408.
No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117 0016/USITC No. 18–5–403, expiration date June 30, 2020. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436.
Information to Be Provided in Response to This Notice of Institution: As used below, the term “firm” includes any related firms.
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is an interested party under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, including whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping duty order on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the
This proceeding is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701–TA–597 and 731–TA–1407 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of cast iron soil pipe from the China, provided for in statistical reporting number 7303.00.0030 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and alleged to be subsidized by the Government of China. Unless the Department of Commerce extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by March 12, 2018. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by March 19, 2018.
January 26, 2018.
Amelia Shister (202) 205–2047), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server
For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.12 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Notice of registration.
Registrants listed below have applied for and been granted registration by the Drug Enforcement Administration as bulk manufacturers of various classes of schedule I and II controlled substances.
The companies listed below applied to be registered as bulk manufacturers of various basic classes of controlled substances. Information on previously published notices is listed in the table below. No comments or objections were submitted for these notices.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of these registrants to manufacture the applicable basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated each of the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing each company's physical security systems, verifying each company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing each company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the DEA has granted a registration as a bulk manufacturer to the above listed persons.
Notice of registration.
Registrants listed below have applied for and been granted registration by the Drug Enforcement Administration as importers of various classes of schedule I or II controlled substances.
The companies listed below applied to be registered as importers of various basic classes of controlled substances. Information on previously published notices is listed in the table below. No comments or objections were submitted and no requests for hearing were submitted for these notices.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of the listed registrants to import the applicable basic classes of
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the DEA has granted a registration as an importer for schedule I or II controlled substances to the above listed persons.
On January 25, 2018, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana in the lawsuit entitled
The Complaint seeks civil penalties and injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) and Title 326 of the Indiana Administrative Code against Indiana Harbor Coke Company, its corporate parent SunCoke Energy, Inc., and Cokenergy, LLC (collectively, the “Defendants”), the owners and/or operators of the coking facility, located in East Chicago, Indiana. The Complaint alleges violations of the CAA and Title 326 of the Indiana Administrative Code relating primarily to excess emissions of coke oven gases from leaking coke ovens and bypass vent stacks.
Under the proposed Consent Decree, Defendants would be jointly and severally liable for a $5 million civil penalty, to be split evenly between the United States and Indiana, and Cokenergy would perform a lead abatement supplemental environmental project at a cost of $250,000. The proposed Consent Decree also would require comprehensive coke oven rebuilds to address oven leaks, including potential permanent shut down of an entire battery, representing one fourth of the total number of ovens; interim and permanent reductions in the annual bypass venting permit limit; enhanced monitoring and testing requirements, including solar occultation flux testing; implementation of preventive operations and maintenance plans to minimize conditions that might cause excess emissions; root cause failure analyses for bypass venting incidents and repeated coke oven leaks; and two mitigation measures, dual operation of the spray dryer absorbers to achieve a reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions from the facility and maintenance of two quench towers to achieve a reduction in particulate matter emissions.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $12.40 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the
Comments should be addressed to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for National Science Foundation, 725 7th Street NW, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, and to Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Room W18000 Alexandria, Virginia 22314, or send email to
NSF may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
(c) Enter into contracts or other arrangements, or modifications thereof, for the carrying on, by organizations or individuals in the United States and foreign countries, including other government agencies of the United States and of foreign countries, of such scientific or engineering activities as the Foundation deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act, and, at the request of the Secretary of Defense, specific scientific or engineering activities in connection with matters relating to international cooperation or national security, and, when deemed appropriate by the Foundation, such contracts or other arrangements or modifications thereof, may be entered into without legal consideration, without performance or other bonds and without regard to section 5 of title 41, U.S.C.
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
Annual notice.
Notice is given of the appointment of members to the Performance Review Board (PRB) of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
Membership is effective on February 1, 2018.
Linda M. Beard, Human Resources Specialist, U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, 1120 20th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 606–5393.
The Review Commission, as required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(1) through (5), has established a Senior Executive Service PRB. The PRB reviews and evaluates the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, and makes recommendations to the Chairman of the Review Commission regarding performance ratings, performance awards, and pay-for-performance adjustments. Members of the PRB serve for a period of 24 months. In the case of an appraisal of a career appointee, more than half of the members shall consist of career appointees, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(5). The names and titles of the PRB members are as follows:
• David Eddy, Chief Counsel Federal Labor Relations Authority;
• Rachel Leonard, General Counsel of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB);
• Mary Thien Hoang, Chief of Staff Federal Maritime Commission; and
• Ted Wackler, P.E. Deputy Chief of Staff, Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy EEOB.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Act”),
The purpose of this filing is to amend the Government Securities Division (“GSD”) Rulebook (the “GSD Rules”)
FICC has also provided the following documentation to the Commission:
1. Backtesting results reflect FICC's comparison of the aggregate Clearing Fund requirement (“CFR”) under GSD's current methodology and the aggregate CFR under the proposed methodology (as listed in the first paragraph above) to historical returns of end-of-day snapshots of each Netting Member's portfolio for the period May 2016 through October 2017. The CFR backtesting results under the proposed methodology were calculated in two ways for end-of-day portfolios: One set of results included the proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment and the other set of results excluded the proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment.
2. An impact study that shows the portfolio level VaR Charge under the proposed methodology for the period January 3, 2013 through December 30, 2016,
3. An impact study that shows the aggregate Required Fund Deposit amount by Netting Member for the period May 1, 2017 through November 30, 2017.
4. The GSD Initial Margin Model (the “QRM Methodology”) which would reflect the proposed methodology of the VaR Charge calculation and the proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment.
FICC is requesting confidential treatment of the above-referenced backtesting results, impact studies and QRM Methodology, and has filed it separately with the Commission.
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to amend the GSD Rules to propose changes to GSD's method of calculating Netting Members' margin, referred to in the GSD Rules as the Required Fund Deposit amount. Specifically, FICC is proposing to (1) change its method of calculating the VaR Charge component, (2) add the Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment as a new component, (3) eliminate the Blackout Period Exposure Charge and the Coverage Charge components, (4) amend the Backtesting Charge to (i) consider the backtesting deficiencies of certain GCF Counterparties during the Blackout Period
The proposed QRM Methodology would reflect the proposed methodology of the VaR Charge calculation and the proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment calculation.
GSD provides trade comparison, netting and settlement for the U.S. Government securities marketplace. Pursuant to the GSD Rules, Netting Members may process the following securities and transaction types through GSD: (1) Buy-sell transactions in eligible U.S. Treasury and Agency securities, (2) delivery versus payment repurchase agreement (“repo”) transactions, where the underlying collateral must be U.S. Treasury securities or Agency securities, and (3) GCF Repo Transactions, where the underlying collateral must be U.S. Treasury securities, Agency securities, or eligible mortgage-backed securities.
A key tool that FICC uses to manage counterparty risk is the daily calculation and collection of Required Fund Deposits from Netting Members.
As discussed below, a Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit currently consists of the VaR Charge and, to the extent applicable, the Coverage Charge, the Blackout Period Exposure Charge, the Backtesting Charge, the Excess Capital Premium, and other components.
The VaR Charge generally comprises the largest portion of a Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit
The VaR Charge provides an estimate of the possible losses for a given portfolio based on a given confidence level over a particular time horizon. The current VaR Charge is calibrated at a 99% confidence level based on a front-weighted
In addition to the full revaluation approach that GSD uses to calculate the VaR Charge, GSD also utilizes “implied volatility indicators” among the assumptions and other observable market data as part of its volatility model. Specifically, GSD applies a multiplier (also known as the “augmented volatility adjustment multiplier”) to calculate the VaR Charge. The multiplier is based on the levels of change in current and implied volatility measures of market benchmarks.
FICC also employs a supplemental risk charge referred to as the Margin Proxy.
In addition to the VaR Charge, a Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit calculation may include a number of other components including, but not limited to, the Coverage Charge, the Blackout Period Exposure Charge, and the Backtesting Charge.
The Coverage Charge is designed to address potential shortfalls
The Blackout Period Exposure Charge is applied when FICC determines that a GCF Counterparty has experienced backtesting deficiencies due to reductions in the notional value of the mortgage-backed securities used to collateralize its GCF Repo Transactions during the monthly Blackout Period. This charge is designed to mitigate FICC's exposure resulting from potential decreases in the collateral value of mortgage-backed securities that occur during the monthly Blackout Period.
The Backtesting Charge is applied when FICC determines that a Netting Member's portfolio has experienced backtesting deficiencies over the prior 12-month period. The Backtesting Charge is designed to mitigate exposures to GSD caused by settlement risks that may not be adequately captured by GSD's Required Fund Deposit.
The Excess Capital Premium is applied to a Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit when its VaR Charge exceeds its Excess Capital. The Excess Capital Premium is designed to more effectively manage a Netting Member's credit risk to GSD that is caused because such Netting Member's trading activity has resulted in a VaR Charge that is greater than its excess regulatory capital.
FICC employs daily backtesting to determine the adequacy of each Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit. Backtesting compares the Required Fund Deposit for each Netting Member with actual price changes in the Netting Member's portfolio. The portfolio values are calculated using the actual positions in a Netting Member's portfolio on a given day and the observed security price changes over the following three days. The backtesting results are reviewed by FICC as part of its performance monitoring and assessment of the adequacy of each Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit. As noted above, a Backtesting Charge may be assessed if GSD determines that a Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit may not fully address the projected liquidation losses estimated from such Netting Member's settlement activity. Similarly, the Coverage Charge may be assessed to address potential shortfalls in the VaR Charge calculation. The Coverage Charge supplements the VaR Charge to help ensure that the Netting Member's backtesting coverage achieves the 99% confidence level. The Coverage Charge considers the backtesting results of only the VaR Charge (including the augmented volatility adjustment multiplier) and mark-to-market, while the Backtesting Charge considers the total Required Fund Deposit amount.
FICC is proposing to amend its calculation of GSD's VaR Charge because during the fourth quarter of 2016, FICC's current methodology for calculating the VaR Charge did not respond effectively to the market volatility that existed at that time. As a result, the VaR Charge did not achieve backtesting coverage at a 99% confidence level and therefore yielded backtesting deficiencies beyond FICC's risk tolerance. In response, FICC implemented the Margin Proxy to help ensure that each Netting Member's VaR Charge achieves a minimum 99%
As a result of FICC's review of GSD's existing VaR model deficiencies, FICC is proposing to: (1) Replace the full revaluation approach with the sensitivity approach, (2) eliminate the augmented volatility adjustment multiplier, (3) employ the Margin Proxy as an alternative volatility calculation rather than as a minimum volatility calculation, (4) utilize a haircut method for securities that lack sufficient historical data, and (5) establish a minimum calculation, referred to as the VaR Floor (as defined below in subsection 5 below), as the minimum VaR Charge. These proposed changes are described in detail below.
FICC is proposing to address GSD's existing VaR model deficiencies by replacing the full revaluation method with the sensitivity approach.
FICC believes that the proposed sensitivity approach would address these deficiencies because it would leverage external vendor
The sensitivity data would be generated by a vendor based on its econometric, risk and pricing models.
• key rate measures the sensitivity of a price change to changes in interest rates;
• convexity measures the degree of curvature in the price/yield relationship of key interest rates;
• implied inflation rate measures the difference between the yield on an ordinary bond and the yield on an inflation-indexed bond with the same maturity;
• agency spread is yield spread that is added to a benchmark yield curve to discount an Agency bond's cash flows to match its market price;
• mortgage-backed securities spread is the yield spread that is added to a benchmark yield curve to discount a to-be-announced (“TBA”) security's cash flows to match its market price;
• volatility reflects the implied volatility observed from the swaption market to estimate fluctuations in interest rates;
• mortgage basis captures the basis risk between the prevailing mortgage rate and a blended Treasury rate; and
• time risk factor accounts for the time value change (or carry adjustment) over the assumed liquidation period.
The above-referenced risk factors are similar to the risk factors currently utilized in MBSD's sensitivity approach, however, GSD has included other risk factors that are specific to the U.S. Treasury securities, Agency securities and mortgage-backed securities cleared through GSD.
Concerning U.S. Treasury securities and Agency securities, FICC would select the following risk factors: Key rates, convexity, agency spread, implied inflation rates, volatility, and time.
For mortgage-backed securities, each security would be mapped to a corresponding TBA forward contract and FICC would use the risk exposure analytics for the TBA as an estimate for the mortgage-backed security's risk exposure analytics. FICC would use the following risk factors to model a TBA security: Key rates, convexity, mortgage-backed securities spread, volatility, mortgage basis, and time. To account for differences between mortgage-backed securities and their corresponding TBA, FICC would apply an additional basis risk adjustment.
FICC's proposal to use the vendor's risk analytics data requires that FICC take steps to mitigate potential model risk. FICC has reviewed a description of the vendor's calculation methodology and the manner in which the market data is used to calibrate the vendor's models. FICC understands and is comfortable with the vendor's controls, governance process and data quality standards. FICC would conduct an independent review of the vendor's release of a new version of its model prior to using it in GSD's proposed sensitivity approach calculation. In the event that the vendor changes its model and methodologies that produce the risk factors and risk sensitivities, FICC would analyze the effect of the proposed changes on GSD's proposed sensitivity approach. Future changes to the QRM Methodology would be subject to a proposed rule change pursuant to Rule 19b–4 (“Rule 19b–4”)
Under the proposed approach, a Netting Member's portfolio risk sensitivities would be calculated by FICC as the aggregate of the security level risk sensitivities weighted by the corresponding position market values. More specifically, FICC would look at the historical changes of the chosen risk factors during the look-back period in order to generate risk scenarios to arrive at the market value changes for a given portfolio. A statistical probability distribution would be formed from the portfolio's market value changes, which are then calibrated to cover the projected liquidation losses at a 99% confidence level. The portfolio risk sensitivities and the historical risk factor time series data would then be used by FICC's risk model to calculate the VaR Charge for each Netting Member.
The proposed sensitivity approach differs from the current full revaluation approach mainly in how the market
FICC believes that the sensitivity approach would provide three key benefits. First, the sensitivity approach incorporates a broad range of structured risk factors and a Netting Member portfolios' exposure to these risk factors, while the full revaluation approach is calibrated with only security level historical data that is supplemented by the augmented volatility adjustment multiplier. The proposed sensitivity approach integrates both observed risk factor changes and current market conditions to more effectively respond to current market price moves that may not be reflected in the historical price moves combined with the augmented volatility adjustment multiplier. In this regard, FICC has concluded, based on its assessment of the backtesting results of the proposed sensitivity approach and its comparison of those results to the backtesting results of the current full revaluation approach
The second benefit of the proposed sensitivity approach is that it would provide more transparency to Netting Members. Because Netting Members typically use risk factor analysis for their own risk and financial reporting, such Members would have comparable data and analysis to assess the variation in their VaR Charge based on changes in the market value of their portfolios. Thus, Netting Members would be able to simulate the VaR Charge to a closer degree than under the existing full revaluation approach.
The third benefit of the proposed sensitivity approach is that it would provide FICC with the ability to adjust the look-back period that FICC uses for purposes of calculating the VaR Charge. Specifically, FICC would change the look-back period from a front-weighted
While FICC could extend the 1-year look-back period in the existing full revaluation approach to a 10-year look-back period, the performance of the existing model could deteriorate if current market conditions are materially different than indicated in the historical data. Additionally, since the full revaluation approach requires FICC to maintain in-house complex pricing models and mortgage prepayment models, enhancing these models to extend the look-back period to include 10 years of historical data involves significant model development. The sensitivity approach, on the other hand, would leverage external vendor data to incorporate a longer look-back period of 10 years, which would allow the proposed model to capture periods of historical volatility.
In the event FICC observes that the 10-year look-back period does not contain a sufficient number of stressed market conditions, FICC would have the ability to include an additional period of historically observed stressed market conditions to a 10-year look-back period or adjust the length of look-back period. The additional stress period is designed to be a continuous period (typically 1 year). FICC believes that it is appropriate to assess on an annual basis whether an additional stressed period should be included. This assessment, which will only occur annually, would include a review of (1) the largest moves in the dominating market risk factor of the proposed sensitivity approach, (2) the impact analyses resulting from the removal and/or addition of a stressed period, and (3) the backtesting results of the proposed look-back period. As described in the QRM Methodology, approval by DTCC's Model Risk Governance Committee (“MRGC”) and, to the extent necessary, the Management Risk Committee (“MRC”) would be required to determine when to apply an additional period of stressed market conditions to the look-back period and the appropriate historical stressed period to utilize if it is not within the current 10-year period.
As described above, the augmented volatility adjustment multiplier gives GSD the ability to adjust its volatility
In connection with FICC's proposal to source data for the proposed sensitivity approach, FICC is also proposing procedures that would govern in the event that the vendor fails to provide risk analytics data. If the vendor fails to provide any data or a significant portion of the data timely, FICC would use the most recently available data on the first day that such data disruption occurs. If it is determined that the vendor will resume providing data within five (5) business days, FICC's management would determine whether the VaR Charge should continue to be calculated by using the most recently available data along with an extended look-back period or whether the Margin Proxy should be invoked, subject to the approval of DTCC's Group Chief Risk Officer or his/her designee. If it is determined that the data disruption will extend beyond five (5) business days, the Margin Proxy would be applied as an alternative volatility calculation for the VaR Charge subject to the proposed VaR Floor.
As noted above, FICC intends to source certain sensitivity data and risk factor data from a vendor. FICC's Quantitative Risk Management, Vendor Risk Management, and Information Technology teams have conducted due diligence of the vendor in order to evaluate its control framework for managing key risks. FICC's due diligence included an assessment of the vendor's technology risk, business continuity, regulatory compliance, and privacy controls. FICC has existing policies and procedures for data management that includes market data and analytical data provided by vendors. These policies and procedures do not have to be amended in connection with this proposed rule change. FICC also has tools in place to assess the quality of the data that it receives from vendors.
Rule 1001(c)(1) of Regulation Systems Compliance and Integrity (“SCI”) requires FICC to establish, maintain, and enforce reasonably designed written policies and procedures that include the criteria for identifying responsible SCI personnel, the designation and documentation of responsible SCI personnel, and escalation procedures to quickly inform responsible SCI personnel of potential SCI events.
Occasionally, portfolios contain classes of securities that reflect market price changes that are not consistently related to historical risk factors. The value of these securities is often uncertain because the securities' market volume varies widely, thus the price histories are limited. Because the volume and price information for such securities is not robust, a historical simulation approach would not generate VaR Charge amounts that adequately reflect the risk profile of such securities. Currently, GSD Rule 4 provides that FICC may use a historic index volatility model to calculate the VaR Charge for these classes of securities.
FICC believes that the proposal to implement a haircut method for securities that lack sufficient historical information would allow FICC to use appropriate market data to estimate a margin at a 99% confident level, thus helping to ensure that sufficient margin would be calculated for portfolios that contain these securities. FICC would continue to manage the market risk of clearing these securities by conducting analysis on the type of securities that cannot be processed by the proposed VaR model and engaging in periodic reviews of the haircuts used for calculating margin for these types of securities.
FICC is proposing to calculate the VaR Charge for these securities by utilizing a haircut approach based on a market benchmark with a similar risk profile as the related security. The proposed haircut approach would be calculated separately for U.S. Treasury/Agency securities (other than (x) treasury floating-rate notes and (y) term repo rate volatility for Term Repo Transactions and Forward-Starting Repo Transactions (including term and forward-starting GCF Repo Transactions))
Specifically, each security in a Netting Member's portfolio would be mapped to a respective benchmark based on the security's asset class and remaining maturity, then all securities within each benchmark would be aggregated into a net exposure. FICC would apply an applicable haircut to the net exposure per benchmark to determine the net price risk for each benchmark. Finally, the net price risk would be aggregated across all benchmarks (but separately for U.S. Treasury/Agency securities and mortgage-backed securities) and a correlation adjustment
FICC is proposing to amend the existing calculation of the VaR Charge to include a minimum amount, which would be referred to as the “VaR Floor.” The proposed VaR Floor would be a calculated amount that would be used as the VaR Charge when the sum of the amounts calculated by the proposed sensitivity approach and haircut method is less than the proposed VaR Floor. FICC's proposal to establish a VaR Floor seeks to address the risk that the proposed VaR model calculates a VaR Charge that is erroneously low where the gross market value of unsettled positions in the Netting Member's portfolio is high and the cost of liquidation in the event of a Member default could also be high. This would be likely to occur when the proposed VaR model applies substantial risk offsets among long and short positions in different classes of securities that have a high degree of historical price correlation. Because this high degree of historical price correlation may not apply in future changing market conditions,
The VaR Floor would be calculated as the sum of the following two components: (1) A U.S. Treasury/Agency bond margin floor and (2) a mortgage-backed securities margin floor. The U.S. Treasury/Agency bond margin floor would be calculated by mapping each U.S. Treasury/Agency security to a tenor bucket, then multiplying the gross positions of each tenor bucket by its bond floor rate, and summing the results. The bond floor rate of each tenor bucket would be a fraction (which would be initially set at 10%) of an index-based haircut rate for such tenor bucket. The mortgage-backed securities margin floor would be calculated by multiplying the gross market value of the total value of mortgage-backed securities in a Netting Member's portfolio by a designated amount, referred to as the pool floor rate, (which would be initially set at 0.05%).
For the reasons described above, FICC believes that the proposed changes to GSD's VaR Charge calculation would allow it to better measure and mitigate the risks presented within Netting Members' portfolios.
One of the risks presented by unsettled positions concentrated in an asset class is that FICC may not be able to liquidate or hedge the unsettled positions of a defaulted Netting Member in the assumed timeframe at the market price in the event of such Netting Member's default. Because FICC relies on external market data in connection with monitoring exposures to its Netting Members, the market data may not reflect the market impact transaction costs associated with the potential liquidation as the concentration risk of an unsettled position increases. However, FICC believes that, through the proposed changes and through existing risk management measures,
FICC will continue to evaluate its exposures to these risks. Any future proposed changes to the margin
FICC is proposing to add a new component to the Required Fund Deposit calculation that would be applied to the VaR Charge for all GCF Counterparties with GCF Repo Transactions collateralized with mortgage-backed securities during the monthly Blackout Period (the “Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment”). FICC is proposing this new component because it would better protect FICC and its Netting Members from losses that could result from overstated values of mortgage-backed securities pledged as collateral for GCF Repo Transactions during the Blackout Period.
The proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment would be in the form of a charge that is added to the VaR Charge or a credit that would reduce the VaR Charge. The proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment would be calculated by (1) projecting an average pay-down rate for the government sponsored enterprises (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae), respectively, then (2) multiplying the projected pay-down rate
The proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment would only be imposed during the Blackout Period and it would be applied as of the morning Clearing Fund call on the Record Date through and including the intraday Clearing Fund call on the Factor Date, or until the Pool Factors
FICC would eliminate the existing Blackout Period Exposure Charge
FICC is proposing to eliminate the Coverage Charge component from GSD's Required Fund Deposit calculation.
As part of the development and assessment of the proposed VaR Charge, FICC backtested the model's performance and analyzed the impact of the margin changes. Results of the analysis indicated that the proposed sensitivity approach would be more responsive to changing market dynamics and a Netting Member's portfolio composition coverage than the existing VaR model that utilizes the full revaluation approach. The backtesting analysis also demonstrated that the proposed sensitivity approach would provide sufficient margin coverage on a
FICC is proposing to amend the Backtesting Charge to (i) include backtesting deficiencies attributable to GCF Repo Transactions collateralized with mortgage-backed securities during the Blackout Period and (ii) give GSD the authority to assess a Backtesting Charge on an intraday basis.
FICC is proposing to amend the Backtesting Charge to provide that this charge would be applied to a GCF Counterparty that experiences backtesting deficiencies that are attributed to GCF Repo Transactions collateralized with mortgage-backed securities during the Blackout Period. Currently, Backtesting Charges are not applied to GCF Counterparties with collateralized mortgage-backed securities during the Blackout Period because such counterparties may be subject to a Blackout Period Exposure Charge. However, now that FICC is proposing to eliminate the Blackout Period Exposure Charge, FICC is proposing to amend the applicability of the Backtesting Charge in the circumstances described above.
FICC is also proposing to amend the Backtesting Charge to provide that this charge may be assessed if a Netting Member is experiencing backtesting deficiencies during the trading day (
The proposed assessment of the Intraday Backtesting Charge differs from the existing assessment of the Backtesting Charge because the existing assessment is based on the backtesting results of a Netting Member's PM RFD versus the historical returns of such Netting Member's portfolio at the end of the trading day while the proposed Intraday Backtesting Charge would be based on the most recent Required Fund Deposit amount that was collected from a Netting Member versus the historical returns of such Netting Member's portfolio intraday.
In an effort to differentiate the proposed Intraday Backtesting Charge from the existing Backtesting Charge, FICC is proposing to change the name of the existing Backtesting Charge to “Regular Backtesting Charge.” The Intraday Backtesting Charge and the Regular Backtesting Charge would collectively be referred to as the Backtesting Charge.
FICC would use a snapshot of each Netting Member's portfolio during the trading day,
As is the case with the existing Backtesting Charge (which would be referred to as the “Regular Backtesting Charge”), the proposed Intraday Backtesting Charge would be assessed on Netting Members with portfolios that experience at least three intraday backtesting deficiencies over the prior 12-month period. The proposed Intraday Backtesting Charge would generally equal a Netting Member's third largest historical intraday backtesting deficiency because FICC believes that an Intraday Backtesting Charge equal to the third largest historical intraday backtesting deficiency would bring the affected Netting Member's historically observed intraday backtesting coverage above the 99% confidence level.
FICC would have the discretion to adjust the Intraday Backtesting Charge to an amount that is more appropriate for maintaining such Netting Member's intraday backtesting results above the 99% coverage threshold.
In the event that FICC determines that an Intraday Backtesting Charge should apply in the circumstances described above, FICC would notify the affected Netting Member prior to its assessment of the charge. As is the case with the existing application of the Backtesting Charge, FICC would notify Netting Members on or around the 25th calendar day of the month.
The proposed Intraday Backtesting Charge would be applied to the affected Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit on a daily basis for a one-month period. FICC would review the assessed Intraday Backtesting Charge on a monthly basis to determine if the charge is still applicable and that the amount charged continues to provide appropriate coverage. In the event that an affected Netting Member's trailing 12-month intraday backtesting coverage exceeds 99% (without taking into account historically imposed Intraday Backtesting Charges), the Intraday Backtesting Charge would be removed.
FICC is proposing to move to a net capital measure for Broker Netting Members, Inter-Dealer Broker Netting Members and Dealer Netting Members that would align the Excess Capital Premium for such Members to a measure that is consistent with the equity capital measure that is used for Bank Netting Members in the Excess Capital Premium calculation.
Currently, the Excess Capital Premium is determined based on the amount that a Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit exceeds its Excess Capital.
FICC is proposing this change because of the Commission's amendments to Rule 15c3–1 (the “Net Capital Rule”), which were adopted in 2013.
FICC believes that the Net Capital Rule is an effective process of separating liquid and illiquid assets, and computing a broker/dealer's regulatory net capital that should replace GSD's existing practice of using Excess Net Capital (which is the difference between the Net Capital and the minimum regulatory Net Capital) as the basis for the Excess Capital Premium.
Separate and apart from the AM RFD and the PM RFD, the GSD Rules give FICC the existing authority to collect Intraday Supplemental Fund Deposits from Netting Members.
Pursuant to the GSD Rules, the Intraday Supplemental Fund Deposits is determined based on GSD's observations of a Netting Member's simulated VaR Charge as it is re-calculated throughout the trading day based on the open positions of such Member's portfolio at designated times (the “Intraday VaR Charge”).
The Intraday Supplemental Fund Deposit is designed to mitigate exposure to GSD that results from large fluctuations in a Netting Member's portfolio due to new and settled trade activities that are not otherwise covered by a Netting Member's recently collected Required Fund Deposit. FICC determines whether to assess an Intraday Supplemental Fund Deposit by tracking three criteria (each, a “Parameter Break”) for each Netting Member. The first Parameter Break evaluates whether a Netting Member's Intraday VaR Charge equals or exceeds a set dollar amount (as determined by FICC from time to time) when compared to the VaR Charge that was included in the most recently collected Required Fund Deposit including, any subsequently collected Intraday Supplemental Fund Deposit (the “Dollar Threshold”). The second Parameter Break evaluates whether the Intraday VaR Charge equals or exceeds a percentage increase (as determined by FICC from time to time) of the VaR Charge that was included in the most recently collected Required Fund Deposit including, if applicable, any subsequently collected Intraday Supplemental Fund Deposit (the “Percentage Threshold”). The third Parameter Break evaluates whether a Netting Member is experiencing backtesting results below the 99% confidence level (the “Coverage Target”).
The purpose of the Dollar Threshold is to identify Netting Members with additional risk exposures that represent a substantial portion of the Clearing Fund. FICC believes these Netting Members pose an increased risk of loss to GSD because the coverage provided by the Clearing Fund (which is designed to cover the aggregate losses of all Netting Members' portfolios) would be substantially impacted by large exposures. In other words, in the event that a Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit is not sufficient to satisfy losses to GSD caused by the liquidation of the defaulted Netting Member's portfolio, FICC will use the Clearing Fund to satisfy such losses. However, because the Clearing Fund must be available to satisfy potential losses that may arise from any Netting Member's defaults, GSD will be exposed to a significant risk of loss if a defaulted Netting Member's additional risk exposure accounted for a substantial portion of the Clearing Fund.
The Dollar Threshold is set to an amount that would help to ensure that the aggregate additional risk exposure of all Netting Members does not exceed 5% of the Clearing Fund. FICC believes that the availability of at least 95% of the Clearing Fund to satisfy all other liquidation losses caused by a defaulted Netting Member is sufficient to mitigate risks posed to FICC by such losses.
Currently, the Dollar Threshold equals a change in a Netting Member's Intraday VaR Charge that equals or exceeds $1,000,000 when compared to the VaR Charge that was included in the most recently collected Required Fund Deposit including, if applicable, any subsequently collected Intraday Supplemental Fund Deposit. On an annual basis, FICC assesses the sufficiency of the Dollar Threshold, and may adjust the Dollar Threshold if FICC determines that an adjustment is necessary to provide GSD with reasonable coverage.
The purpose of the Percentage Threshold is to identify Netting Members with Intraday VaR Charge amounts that reflect significant changes when such amounts are compared to the VaR Charge that was included as a component in such Netting Member's most recently collected Required Fund Deposit. FICC believes that these Netting Members pose an increased risk of loss to GSD because the most recently collected VaR Charge (which is designed to cover estimated losses to a portfolio over a three-day liquidation period at least 99% of the time) may not adequately reflect a Netting Member's portfolio with such Netting Member's significant intraday changes in additional risk exposure. Thus, in the event that the Netting Member defaults during the trading day the Netting Member's most recently collected Required Fund Deposit may be insufficient to cover the liquidation of its portfolio within a three-day liquidation period.
Currently, the Percentage Threshold is equal to a Netting Member's Intraday VaR Charge that equals or exceeds 100% of the most recently calculated VaR Charge included in the most recently collected Required Fund Deposit including, if applicable, any subsequently collected Intraday Supplemental Fund Deposit. On an annual basis, FICC assesses the sufficiency of the Percentage Threshold and may adjust the Percentage Threshold if it determines that such adjustment is necessary to provide GSD with reasonable coverage.
The purpose of the Coverage Target is to identify Netting Members with backtesting results
In the event that FICC determines that a Netting Member's additional risk exposure breaches all three Parameter Breaks, FICC will assess an Intraday Supplemental Fund Deposit. Should FICC determine that certain market conditions exist
FICC has the discretion to waive or change
This proposed rule change would become operative 45 business days after the later date of the Commission's approval of this proposed rule change and its notice of no objection to FICC's related advance notice filing (the “Advance Notice Filing”).
Prior to the effective date, FICC would add a legend to the GSD Rules to state that the specified changes to the GSD Rules are approved but not yet operative, and to provide the date such approved changes would become operative. The legend would also include the file numbers of the approved proposed rule change and Advance Notice Filing and would state that once operative, the legend would automatically be removed from the GSD Rules.
FICC is proposing to amend the term “Backtesting Charge” to provide that a GCF Counterparty's backtesting deficiencies attributable to collateralized mortgage-backed securities during the Blackout Period would be considered in FICC's assessment of the applicability of the charge. FICC is also proposing to amend the definition of the term “Backtesting Charge” to provide that an Intraday Backtesting Charge may be assessed based on the backtesting results of a Netting Member's intraday portfolio. In order to differentiate the Intraday Backtesting charge from the existing application of the Backtesting Charge, the existing charge would be referred to as the “Regular Backtesting Charge.” As a result of this proposed change, FICC would be permitted to assess an Intraday Backtesting Charge based on a Netting Member's intraday portfolio and a Regular Backtesting Charge based on a Netting Member's end of day portfolio. As a result of this proposed change, FICC's calculation of the Intraday Backtesting Charge and the Regular Backtesting Charge could include deficiencies attributable to GCF Repo Transactions collateralized with mortgage-backed securities during the Blackout Period.
FICC is proposing to add the new defined term “Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment” to define a new component in the Required Fund Deposit calculation. This component would apply to all GCF Counterparties with exposure to mortgage-backed securities in their portfolio during the Blackout Period.
FICC is proposing to delete the term “Blackout Period Exposure Charge.” This component would no longer be necessary because the proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment would be applied to all GCF Counterparties with exposure to mortgage-backed securities in their portfolio.
FICC is proposing to delete the term “Coverage Charge” because this component would be eliminated from the Required Fund Deposit calculation.
FICC is proposing to delete the term “Excess Capital” because FICC is proposing to add the new defined term “Netting Member Capital.”
FICC is proposing to amend the definition of the term “Excess Capital Ratio” to reflect the replacement of “Excess Capital” with “Netting Member Capital.”
FICC is proposing to change the term “Intraday Supplemental Clearing Fund Deposit” to “Intraday Supplemental Fund Deposit” because the latter is consistent with the term that is reflected in GSD Rule 4.
FICC is proposing to amend the term “Margin Proxy” to reflect that the Margin Proxy would be used as an alternative volatility calculation.
FICC is proposing to add the new defined term “Netting Member Capital” to reflect the change to the Net Capital for Broker Netting Members', Inter-Broker Dealer Netting Members' and Dealer Netting Members' calculation of the Excess Capital Ratio.
FICC is proposing to amend the definition of the term “VaR Charge” to establish that (1) the Margin Proxy would be utilized as an alternative volatility calculation in the event that the requisite data used to employ the sensitivity approach is unavailable, and (2) a VaR Floor would be utilized as the VaR Charge in the event that the proposed model based approach yields an amount that is lower than the VaR Floor.
FICC is proposing to eliminate the reference to “Coverage Charge” because this component would no longer be included in the Required Fund Deposit calculation.
FICC is proposing to add the “Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment” because this would be a new component included in the Required Fund Deposit calculation.
FICC is proposing to eliminate the reference to “Blackout Period Exposure Charge” because this component would no longer be included in the Required Fund Deposit calculation.
FICC is proposing to renumber this section in order to accommodate the above-referenced proposed changes.
FICC is proposing to define “Net Unsettled Position” because it is a defined term in GSD Rule 1.
FICC is proposing to amend this section to state that a haircut method would be utilized based on the historic index volatility model for the purposes of calculating the VaR Charge for classes of securities that cannot be handled by the VaR model's methodology.
FICC is proposing to delete the paragraph relating to the Margin Proxy because the Margin Proxy would no longer be used to supplement the VaR Charge.
The QRM Methodology document provides the methodology by which FICC would calculate the VaR Charge with the proposed sensitivity approach as well as other components of the Required Fund Deposit calculation. The QRM Methodology document specifies (i) the model inputs, parameters, assumptions and qualitative adjustments, (ii) the calculation used to generate Required Fund Deposit amounts, (iii) additional calculations used for benchmarking and monitoring purposes, (iv) theoretical analysis, (v) the process by which the VaR methodology was developed as well as its application and limitations, (vi) internal business requirements associated with the implementation and ongoing monitoring of the VaR methodology, (vii) the model change management process and governance framework (which includes the escalation process for adding a stressed period to the VaR calculation), (viii) the haircut methodology, (ix) the Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment calculations, (x) intraday margin calculation, and (xi) the Margin Proxy calculation.
FICC believes that the proposed changes, as described in Item II.(A)1. above, are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a registered clearing agency. In particular, FICC believes that the proposed changes are consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,
Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
By enabling FICC to better limit its exposure to Netting Members, the proposed changes described in Item II.(A)1. are designed to ensure that, in the event of a Netting Member default, FICC's operations would not be disrupted and non-defaulting Netting Members would not be exposed to losses they cannot anticipate or control. In this way, the proposed rules are designed to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of FICC or for which it is responsible and therefore consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
In addition, FICC believes that the proposed changes are consistent with Rules 17Ad–22(e)(4)(i) and (e)(6)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) of the Act.
Rule 17Ad–22(e)(4)(i) under the Act
FICC believes that the proposed changes described in Item II.(A)1. above enhance FICC's ability to identify, measure, monitor and manage its credit exposures to Netting Members and those exposures arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement processes because the proposed changes would collectively help to ensure that FICC maintains sufficient financial resources to cover its credit exposure to each Netting Member with a high degree of confidence.
Because each of the proposed changes to FICC's Required Fund Deposit calculation would provide FICC with a more effective measure of the risks that these calculations were designed to assess, the proposed changes would permit FICC to more effectively identify, measure, monitor and manage its exposures to market price risk, and would enable it to better limit its exposure to potential losses from Netting Member default. Specifically, the proposed changes described in Item II.(A)1. above are designed to help ensure that GSD appropriately calculates and collects margin to cover its credit exposure to each Netting Member with a high degree of confidence because (1) the proposed change to utilize the sensitivity approach would provide better margin coverage for FICC, (2) the proposed use of the Margin Proxy as an alternative volatility calculation would help to ensure that FICC has a margin methodology in place that effectively measures FICC's exposure to Netting Members in the event that a vendor data disruption reduces the reliability of the margin amount calculated by the proposed sensitivity-based VaR model, (3) the proposed haircut method would provide a better assessment of the risks associated with classes of securities with inadequate historical pricing data, (4) the proposed VaR Floor would limit FICC's credit exposures to Netting Members in the event that the proposed VaR model utilizing the sensitivity approach yields too low a VaR Charge for such portfolios, (5) the proposal eliminates the Blackout Period Exposure, Coverage Charge and augmented volatility adjustment multiplier because FICC should not maintain elements of the prior model that would unnecessarily increase Netting Members' Required Fund Deposits, (6) the proposal to add the proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment as a new component would limit FICC's credit exposures during the Blackout Period caused by GCF Repo Transactions collateralized mortgage-backed securities with risk characteristics that are not effectively captured by the Required Fund Deposit calculation, (7) the proposal to amend the Backtesting Charge to consider backtesting deficiencies attributable to GCF Repo Transactions collateralized with mortgage-backed securities during the Blackout Period would help to ensure that FICC could cover credit exposure to GCF Counterparties, (8) the proposed Intraday Backtesting Charge would help to ensure that FICC collects appropriate margin from Netting Members that have backtesting deficiencies during the trading day due to large fluctuations of intraday trading activity that could pose risk to FICC in the event that such Netting Members defaults during the trading day, and (9) the proposed change to the Excess Capital Premium calculation would help to ensure that FICC does not unnecessarily increase its calculation and collection of Required Fund Deposit amounts for Broker Netting Members, Inter-Dealer Broker Netting Members and Dealer Netting Members.
The proposed changes would continue to be subject to performance reviews by FICC. In the event that FICC's backtesting process reveals that the VaR Charge, Required Fund Deposit amounts and/or the Clearing Fund do not meet FICC's 99% confidence level, FICC would review its margin methodologies and assess whether any changes should be considered. Therefore, FICC believes the proposed changes are consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad–22(e)(4)(i) of the Act cited above.
Rule 17Ad–22(e)(6)(i) under the Act
FICC believes that the proposed changes referenced above in the second paragraph of this section (each of which have been described in detail in Item II.(A)1. above) are consistent with Rule 17Ad–22(e)(6)(i) of the Act cited above because the proposed changes would help to ensure that FICC calculates and collects adequate Required Fund Deposit amounts, and that each Netting Member's amount is commensurate with the risks and particular attributes of each relevant product, portfolio, and market. Specifically, (1) the proposed change to utilize the sensitivity approach would provide better margin coverage for FICC, (2) the proposed use of the Margin Proxy as an alternative volatility calculation would help to ensure that FICC has a margin methodology in place that effectively measures FICC's exposure to Netting Members in the event that a vendor data disruption reduces the reliability of the margin amount calculated by the proposed sensitivity-based VaR model, (3) the proposed haircut method would provide a better assessment of the risks associated with classes of securities with inadequate historical pricing data, (4) the proposed VaR Floor would limit FICC's credit exposures to Netting Members in the event that the proposed VaR model utilizing the sensitivity approach yields too low a VaR Charge for such portfolios, (5) the proposal eliminates the Blackout Period Exposure, Coverage Charge and augmented volatility adjustment multiplier because FICC should not maintain elements of the prior model that would unnecessarily increase Netting Members' Required Fund Deposits, (6) the proposal to add the proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment as a new component would limit FICC's credit exposures during the Blackout Period caused by GCF Repo Transactions collateralized mortgage-backed securities with risk characteristics that are not effectively captured by the Required Fund Deposit calculation, (7) the proposal to amend the Backtesting Charge to consider backtesting deficiencies attributable to GCF Repo Transactions collateralized with mortgage-backed securities during the Blackout Period would help to ensure that FICC could cover credit exposure to GCF Counterparties, (8) the proposed Intraday Backtesting Charge would help to ensure that FICC collects appropriate margin from Netting Members that have backtesting deficiencies during the trading day due to large fluctuations of intraday trading activity that could pose risk to FICC in the event that such Netting Members defaults during the trading day, and (9) the proposed change to the Excess Capital Premium calculation would help to ensure that FICC does not unnecessarily increase its calculation and collection of Required Fund Deposit amounts for Broker Netting Members, Inter-Dealer Broker Netting Members and Dealer Netting Members.
Therefore, FICC believes that the proposed changes are consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad–22(e)(6)(i) cited above because the collective proposed rule changes would consider, and produce margin levels commensurate with, the risks and particular attributes of each relevant product, portfolio, and market.
Rule 17Ad–22(e)(6)(ii) under the Act
FICC believes that the proposed changes are consistent Rule 17Ad–22(e)(6)(ii) of the Act cited above because the proposed Intraday Backtesting Charge would help to ensure that FICC collects appropriate margin from Netting Members that have backtesting deficiencies during the trading day due to large fluctuations of intraday trading activity that could pose risk to FICC in the event that such Netting Members defaults during the trading day. Therefore, FICC believes that the proposed Intraday Backtesting Charge would provide GSD with the authority and operational capacity to make intraday margin calls in a manner that is consistent with Rule 17Ad–22(e)(6)(ii) of the Act cited above.
Rule 17Ad–22(e)(6)(iii) under the Act
FICC believes that the proposed changes are consistent Rule 17Ad–22(e)(6)(iii) of the Act cited above because the proposed changes are designed to calculate Required Fund Deposit amounts that are sufficient to cover FICC's potential future exposure to Netting Members in the interval between the last margin collection and the close out of positions following a participant default. Specifically, (1) the proposed change to utilize the sensitivity approach would provide better margin coverage for FICC, (2) the proposed use of the Margin Proxy as an alternative volatility calculation would help to ensure that FICC has a margin methodology in place that effectively measures FICC's exposure to Netting Members in the event that a vendor data disruption reduces the reliability of the margin amount calculated by the proposed sensitivity-based VaR model, (3) the proposed haircut method would provide a better assessment of the risks associated with classes of securities with inadequate historical pricing data, (4) the proposed VaR Floor would limit FICC's credit exposures to Netting Members in the event that the proposed VaR model utilizing the sensitivity approach yields too low a VaR Charge for such portfolios, (5) the proposal eliminates the Blackout Period Exposure, Coverage Charge and augmented volatility adjustment multiplier because FICC should not maintain elements of the prior model that would unnecessarily increase Netting Members' Required Fund Deposits, (6) the proposal to add the proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment as a new component would limit FICC's credit exposures during the Blackout Period caused by GCF Repo Transactions collateralized mortgage-backed securities with risk characteristics that are not effectively captured by the Required Fund Deposit calculation, (7) the proposal to amend the Backtesting Charge to consider backtesting deficiencies attributable to GCF Repo Transactions collateralized with mortgage-backed securities during the Blackout Period would help to ensure that FICC could cover credit exposure to GCF Counterparties, (8) the proposed Intraday Backtesting Charge would help to ensure that FICC collects appropriate margin from Netting Members that have backtesting deficiencies during the trading day due to large fluctuations of intraday trading activity that could pose risk to FICC in the event that such Netting Members defaults during the trading day, and (9)
Therefore, FICC believes that the proposed changes would be consistent with Rule 17Ad–22(e)(6)(iii) of the Act cited above because the proposed rules changes would collectively be designed to help ensure that FICC calculates Required Fund Deposit amounts that are sufficient to cover FICC's potential future exposure to Netting Members in the interval between the last margin collection and the close out of positions following a participant default.
Rule 17Ad–22(e)(6)(iv) under the Act
FICC believes that the proposed change to implement a haircut method for securities that lack sufficient historical information is consistent with Rule 17Ad–22(e)(6)(iv) of the Act cited above because the proposed change would allow FICC to use appropriate market data to estimate an appropriate margin at a 99% confidence level, thus helping to ensure that sufficient margin would be calculated for portfolios that contain these securities.
Rule 17Ad–22(e)(6)(v) under the Act
FICC believes that the proposed changes to implement a haircut method for securities that lack sufficient historical information is consistent with Rule 17Ad–22(e)(6)(v) of the Act cited above because the haircut method would allow FICC to use appropriate market data to estimate an appropriate margin at a 99% confident level, thus helping to ensure that sufficient margin would be calculated for portfolios that contain these securities.
FICC also believes that its proposal to replace the Blackout Period Exposure Charge with the Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment is consistent with Rule 17Ad–22(e)(6)(v) of the Act cited above because the proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment would limit FICC's credit exposures during the Blackout Period caused by portfolios with collateralized mortgage-backed securities with risk characteristics that are not effectively captured by the Required Fund Deposit calculation.
Therefore, FICC believes that the proposed haircut method and the proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment are consistent with Rule 17Ad–22(e)(6)(v) of the Act cited above because the proposed changes appropriate method for measuring credit exposure that accounts for relevant product risk factors and portfolio effects across products.
FICC does not believe that the implementation of the risk management changes that comprise the proposed rule change related to the Required Fund Deposit calculations would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act.
FICC believes that the proposed rule change could have an impact upon competition because implementation of the risk management changes that comprise the proposed rule change would produce changes in the daily calculations of Netting Members' Required Fund Deposits, and thus will either increase or decrease Netting Members' Required Fund Deposits for each day when compared to the calculation of the Required Fund Deposit methodology that FICC currently uses. The proposed changes to the calculation of the Required Fund Deposit could both burden competition and promote competition, at different points in time, by altering Netting Members' Required Fund Deposits. At any point in time when the proposed change to the calculation of the Required Fund Deposit produces relatively greater increases in Required Fund Deposits for Netting Members that have lower operating margins or higher costs of capital than other Netting Members, the proposed change would burden competition. Conversely, when such Netting Members' Required Fund Deposits are reduced because of the proposed change to the calculation of the Required Fund Deposit, the change may promote competition. Because (i) all Netting Members are expected to experience both increases and decreases in Required Fund Deposits compared to the amounts that would be calculated using the existing methodology, depending on each Netting Member's particular portfolio and market conditions, and (ii) no particular category of Netting Member is expected to experience materially greater increases or decreases than other Netting Members, FICC believes that the proposed change will not impose a significant burden on competition.
FICC believes that any burden on competition that is created by the proposed rule change is necessary in furtherance of the Act because, as described above, the GSD Rules must be designed to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds that are in its custody or control or for which it is responsible.
FICC believes that the risk management changes that comprise the proposed rule change are appropriate in furtherance of the Act because they enhance FICC's methodology for calculating margin requirements by implementing an improved risk-based approach that provides better coverage for FICC with respect to its credit exposures to Netting Members while not significantly increasing Netting Members' Required Fund Deposits when averaged across time. The financial impact of and risk management benefit of each change is further described below.
Utilization of the proposed sensitivity approach to calculate the VaR Charge rather than the existing full revaluation approach with the augmented volatility multiplier is expected, generally, to generate higher VaR Charges during volatile market periods and lower VaR Charges during normal market conditions. While the degree of impact depends upon each Netting Member's particular portfolio, Netting Members that submit similar portfolios will have similar impacts to their VaR Charges during both volatile and normal market conditions. To the extent that a Netting Member's portfolio may pose a greater
FICC performed an impact study of the portfolio level VaR Charge under the proposed methodology for the period January 3, 2013 through December 30, 2016 and backtested the performance of the CFR that includes the proposed sensitivity approach from May 2016 through October 2017. This analysis revealed that, under the proposed sensitivity approach, the portfolio level backtesting coverage of the VaR Charge is similar to the existing VaR Charge supplemented by Margin Proxy for the majority of Netting Members, but would have increased for 24% of the Netting Members' portfolios. The rolling 12 months coverage of CFR for May 2016 through October 2017 using the proposed methodology was more stable than the current methodology and remained above 99% for the entire observation period. Implementing the proposed sensitivity approach improves the risk-based model that FICC employs to set margin requirements and better limits FICC's credit exposures to participants.
The Margin Proxy would be used as an alternative methodology to calculate the VaR Charge in the event that the data needed to operate the VaR model becomes unavailable for an extended period of time. Invocation of the Margin Proxy could produce slightly higher VaR Charges for Netting Members when compared to the proposed VaR model because the Margin Proxy could reduce certain risk offsets among portfolio positions. FICC believes that any burden on competition that derives from the proposed use of the Margin Proxy is necessary in furtherance of the Act because the Margin Proxy would help to ensure that FICC has a margin methodology in place that effectively measures FICC's exposure to Netting Members in the event that a vendor data disruption reduces the reliability of the margin amount calculated by the proposed sensitivity-based VaR model. FICC believes that any burden on competition that derives from the proposed use of the Margin Proxy is appropriate in furtherance of the Act because (1) FICC's ongoing monitoring of the Margin Proxy would help to ensure that the Margin Proxy calculates VaR Charges that are reasonably consistent with the sensitivity approach and (2) FICC expects that the Margin Proxy would rarely be invoked.
The proposed haircut method would be applied to classes of securities that cannot be processed by the proposed VaR model because such securities have inadequate historical pricing data. The proposed haircut approach could produce higher VaR Charges for Netting Members with portfolios with these classes of securities. FICC believes that any burden on competition that derives from implementing the proposed haircut method is necessary in furtherance of the Act because the proposed haircut method provides a better assessment of the risks associated with these securities and therefore would enhance FICC's ability to limit its credit exposures to participants. FICC believes that any burden on competition that derives from implementing the proposed haircut method is appropriate in furtherance of the Act because FICC would continue to manage the market risk of clearing these securities by conducting analysis on the type of securities that cannot be processed by the proposed VaR model and engaging in periodic reviews of the haircuts used for calculating margin for these types of securities.
The proposed VaR Floor would establish a minimum VaR Charge for Netting Members that have portfolios with long and short positions in different classes of securities that have a high degree of historical price correlation. Implementing the VaR Floor will likely increase Required Fund Deposits for such Netting Members because such portfolios might generate a lower VaR Charge using the sensitivity calculations alone. FICC believes that any burden on competition that derives from the proposed VaR Floor is necessary in furtherance of the Act because the proposed VaR Floor would enhance FICC's ability to limit its credit exposures to participants in the event that the proposed VaR model utilizing the sensitivity approach yields too low a VaR Charge for such portfolios. FICC believes that any burden on competition that derives from the proposed VaR Floor is appropriate in furtherance of the Act because the proposed VaR Floor would help to ensure that FICC has sufficient margin in the event that FICC is required to liquidate or hedge a large securities portfolio in stressed market conditions.
The proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment would be applied, in the form of a credit or charge, to the VaR Charge for GCF Counterparties with GCF Repo Transactions collateralized with mortgage-backed securities during the Blackout Period. The proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment is expected to either increase or decrease a GCF Counterparty's Required Fund Deposit amount if such participant has GCF Repo Transactions collateralized with mortgage-backed securities during the monthly Blackout Period. While the degree of the impact would depend upon the amount and type of mortgage-backed securities used to collateralize GCF Repo Transactions, GCF Counterparties that have similar amounts of mortgage-backed securities are likely to have a similar Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment. Nevertheless, GCF Counterparties that are assessed a Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment may experience a lower Required Fund Deposit in the future because such GCF Counterparties would be less likely to experience backtesting deficiencies and therefore may not be subject to a Backtesting Charge. As noted above, the proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment would be calculated by (1) projecting an average pay-down rate for the government sponsored enterprises (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae), respectively, then (2) multiplying the projected pay-down rate
The proposed removal of the Blackout Period Exposure Charge, Coverage Charge and augmented volatility adjustment multiplier would reduce Netting Members' Required Fund Deposits by eliminating charges that are no longer necessary following implementation of the other changes that comprise the proposed rule change. FICC believes that any burden on competition that derives from eliminating the Coverage Charge and augmented volatility adjustment multiplier are necessary in furtherance of the Act because the proposed changes support FICC's implementation of policies and procedures reasonably designed to limit its credit exposures to participants and use of risk-based models to set margin requirements. FICC believes that any burden on competition that derives from eliminating the Coverage Charge and augmented volatility adjustment multiplier are appropriate in furtherance of the Act because FICC should not maintain elements of the prior model that would unnecessarily increase Netting Members' Required Fund Deposits.
The proposed change to amend the Backtesting Charge to include backtesting deficiencies attributable to GCF Repo Transactions collateralized with mortgage-backed securities during the Blackout Period could increase a GCF Counterparty's Required Fund Deposit amount if the third largest deficiency amount used to calculate the Backtesting Charge is larger during the Blackout Period. FICC believes that any burden on competition that derives from the proposed change is necessary in furtherance of the Act because the proposed change would help FICC to maintain its credit exposures to such GCF Repo Participant at a confidence level of at least 99%. FICC believes that any burden on competition that derives from the proposed change is appropriate in furtherance of the Act because the proposed change would help to ensure that FICC collects appropriate margin from a GCF Counterparty with exposures due to decreases in the collateral value of mortgage-backed securities during the monthly Blackout Period that would not be captured by the proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment. FICC believes that imposing the proposed Backtesting Charge during the Blackout Period protects FICC against the risk that a defaulted GCF Counterparty's portfolio contains exposure to GCF Repo Transactions collateralized with mortgage-backed securities that would not be adequately captured by the GCF Counterparty's Required Fund Deposit.
The proposed change to assess an Intraday Backtesting Charge would increase Netting Members' Required Fund Deposits because FICC would apply an Intraday Backtesting Charge in the event that a Netting Member experiences multiple intraday backtesting deficiencies. FICC believes that any burden on competition that derives from the proposed change to assess an Intraday Backtesting Charge is necessary in furtherance of the Act because the proposed Intraday Backtesting Charge would help to ensure that FICC collects appropriate margin from Netting Members that have backtesting deficiencies during the trading day due to large fluctuations of intraday trading activity that could pose risk to FICC in the event that such Netting Members defaults during the trading day. FICC believes that any burden on competition that derives from the proposed change is appropriate in furtherance of the Act because the Intraday Backtesting Charge would be commensurate with the portfolio risk that Netting Members clear through GSD.
The proposed change to the Excess Capital Premium formula for a Broker Netting Member, Inter-Dealer Broker Netting Member and Dealer Netting Member may reduce such Member' Required Fund Deposits by using Net Capital in GSD's calculation of the Excess Capital Premium. FICC believes that this impact reduces the burden on competition for Broker Netting Members, Inter-Dealer Broker Netting Members and Dealer Netting Members because FICC will use a similar capital measure for broker/dealer and banks when determining whether an Excess Capital Premium should be applied to their Required Fund Deposit calculation. FICC believes that any burden on competition that derives from modifying the Excess Capital Premium is necessary in furtherance of the Act because the proposed changes support FICC's implementation of policies and procedures reasonably designed to limit its credit exposures to participants and use of risk-based models to set margin requirements. FICC believes change in the burden on competition that derives from modification of the Excess Capital Premium is appropriate in furtherance of the Act because FICC should not
For the reasons stated above, FICC believes that any burden on competition that derives from risk management changes is necessary and appropriate in furtherance of FICC's obligations under the Act and Rules 17Ad–22(b)(i) and (e)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) thereunder.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule changes have not been solicited or received. FICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by FICC.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.
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.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR–FICC–2018–001 and should be submitted on or before February 22, 2018.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On October 11, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) 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 list and trade Shares of the Fund under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600–E, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares. The Fund is a series of the Hartford Funds Exchange-Traded Trust (“Trust”), which is registered with the Commission as an open-end management investment company.
Hartford Funds Management Company, LLC (“Manager”) will be the investment manager to the Fund, and Schroder Investment Management North America Inc. (“Sub-Adviser”) will be the sub-adviser to the Fund and perform the daily investment of the assets for the Fund.
According to the Exchange, the Fund will seek total return on an after-tax basis and will seek to achieve its investment objective by investing in a diversified portfolio of fixed income debt instruments of varying maturities.
Under normal market conditions,
The fixed income debt instruments in which the Fund may invest as part of its principal investment strategy are securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government and its agencies, government-sponsored enterprise securities, corporate bonds, agency mortgage-backed securities (including “to be announced” or “TBA” transactions), agency asset-backed securities (“ABS”), “Municipal Securities” (as described below), sovereign debt, and debt securities issued by supranational organizations. They may pay fixed, variable, or floating interest rates.
The Fund may invest in the following Municipal Securities: General obligation bonds; revenue (or limited obligation) bonds; private activity (or industrial development) bonds; bonds that are collateralized with agency and/or treasury securities; municipal notes; municipal lease obligations; and municipal inverse floaters.
While the Fund, under normal market conditions, will invest principally in the securities and financial instruments described above, the Fund may invest its remaining assets in the securities and financial instruments described below.
The Fund may invest in U.S. and foreign non-agency ABS, which are securities backed by a pool of some underlying asset, including but not limited to home equity loans, installment sale contracts, credit card receivables, or other assets.
The Fund may invest in U.S. and foreign non-agency mortgage-related securities. Mortgage-related securities may be composed of one or more classes and may be structured either as pass-through securities or collateralized debt obligations (which include collateralized bond obligations and collateralized loan obligations).
The Fund may invest in U.S. exchange-traded closed-end funds and exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”).
The Fund may engage actively in transactions in derivatives (futures, options, swaps, and forward rate agreements) as described below. The Fund will normally use derivatives to supplement the effective management of its duration profile, to gain exposure to particular securities or markets, in connection with hedging transactions, or for purposes of efficient portfolio management, including managing cash flows or as part of the Fund's risk management process.
The Fund may invest in U.S and foreign exchange-traded and over-the counter (“OTC”) put and call options. The Fund may engage in options transactions on any security, index, or instrument in which it may invest.
The Fund may invest in U.S and foreign exchange-traded and OTC currency options.
The Fund may invest in U.S. and foreign exchange-traded futures contracts and options on futures contracts with respect to equity and debt securities, foreign currencies, aggregates of equity and debt securities (aggregates are composites of equity or debt securities that are not tied to a commonly known index), interest rates, indices, commodities, and other financial instruments.
The Fund may enter into the following U.S exchange-traded, foreign exchange-traded, and OTC swaps: Commodity swaps; total return swaps; currency swaps; credit default swaps (“CDS”); CDS index swaps (“CDX”); asset swaps; inflation swaps; event-linked swaps; interest rate swaps; swaps on specific securities or indices; and swaps on rates (such as mortgage prepayment rates). The Fund may invest in U.S. exchange-traded and OTC municipal derivatives (
The Fund may enter into forward rate agreements.
The Fund may invest in inflation-protected debt securities.
The Fund may invest in convertible and nonconvertible preferred stock traded OTC or on U.S. and non-U.S. exchanges.
The Fund may hold restricted securities, which are securities that cannot be offered for public resale unless registered under the applicable securities laws or that have a contractual restriction that prohibits or limits their resale.
With respect to any of the Fund's investments, the Fund may invest in when-issued and delayed delivery securities and forward commitments.
The Exchange represents that the Fund's investments will be consistent with its investment goal and will not be used to provide multiple returns of a benchmark or to produce leveraged returns.
With respect to the Fund's investments in Municipal Securities, under normal market conditions, except for periods of high cash inflows or outflows,
1. The Fund will have a minimum of 20 non-affiliated issuers;
2. No single Municipal Securities issuer will account for more than 10% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio;
3. No individual bond will account for more than 5% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio;
4. The Fund will limit its investments in Municipal Securities of any one state or U.S. territory to 25% of the Fund's total assets, except that up to and including 40% of the Fund's total assets may be invested in Municipal Securities of issuers in each of California, New York, and Texas;
5. The Fund's investments in Municipal Securities will be diversified among issuers in at least 10 states and U.S. territories; and
6. The Fund will be diversified among a minimum of five different sectors of the Municipal Securities market.
The Exchange states that pre-refunded bonds will be excluded from the above limits given that they have a high level of credit quality and liquidity.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600–E, which includes generic listing requirements for Managed Fund Shares. According to the Exchange, the Fund's portfolio will not meet all of the generic listing requirements of Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600–E. Commentary .01(b)(1) to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600–E requires that, on both an initial and continuing basis, components that in the aggregate account for at least 75% of the fixed income weight of the portfolio each have a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more. The Exchange states that the Fund would not meet this requirement, as a result principally of the Fund's investments in Municipal Securities. The Exchange represents that the Fund's investments in Municipal Securities would be subject to the requirements described in Section II.C. above. The Exchange notes that the Manager represents that the fixed income weight of the Fund's portfolio, other than holdings in Municipal Securities, will meet the generic listing requirements of Commentary .01(b). The Exchange also represents that, other than Commentary .01(b)(1), the Fund's portfolio will meet all other requirements of NYSE Arca Rule 8.600–E.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b–4 under the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, should be approved or disapproved by February 22, 2018. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by March 8, 2018.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On September 7, 2017, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
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.
This Amendment No. 4 to SR–BatsBZX–2017–54 amends and replaces in its entirety Amendment No. 3 to SR–BatsBZX–2017–54, which was submitted on January 9, 2017, which amended and replaced in its entirety Amendment No. 2 to SR–BatsBZX–2017–54, which was submitted on December 15, 2017, which amended and replaced in its entirety the proposal as originally submitted on September 7, 2017. The Exchange submits this Amendment No. 3 [sic] in order to clarify certain points and add additional details about the Fund.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares under Rule 14.11(i), which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange.
The Shares will be offered by the Trust, which was established as a Delaware statutory trust on June 21, 2011. BlackRock Fund Advisors (the “Adviser”) is the investment adviser to the Fund. The Trust is registered with the Commission as an open-end investment company and has filed a registration statement on behalf of the Fund on Form N–1A (“Registration Statement”) with the Commission.
Rule 14.11(i)(7) provides that, if the investment adviser to the investment company issuing Managed Fund Shares is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser shall erect and maintain a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such investment company portfolio.
The Fund intends to qualify each year as a regulated investment company under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will be an actively managed exchange-traded fund that will seek to mitigate the inflation risk of a portfolio with exposure to U.S. dollar-denominated investment-grade corporate bonds. The Fund seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing, under Normal Market Conditions,
The Fund's investments, including derivatives, will be consistent with the 1940 Act and the Fund's investment objective and policies and will not be used to enhance leverage (although certain derivatives and other investments may result in leverage).
The Exchange notes that the Fund may also hold certain fixed income securities and cash and cash equivalents in compliance with Rules 14.11(i)(4)(C)(ii) and (iii) in order to collateralize its derivatives positions.
The Exchange represents that, except for the exceptions to BZX Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C) described above, the Fund's proposed investments will satisfy, on an initial and continued listing basis, all of the generic listing standards under BZX Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C) and all other applicable requirements for Managed Fund Shares under Rule 14.11(i). The Trust is required to comply with Rule 10A–3 under the Act for the initial and continued listing of the Shares of the Fund. In addition, the Exchange represents that the Shares of the Fund will comply with all other requirements applicable to Managed Fund Shares including, but not limited to, requirements relating to the dissemination of key information such as the Disclosed Portfolio, Net Asset Value, and the Intraday Indicative Value, rules governing the trading of equity securities, trading hours, trading halts, surveillance, firewalls, and the information circular, as set forth in Exchange rules applicable to Managed Fund Shares and the orders approving such rules. At least 100,000 Shares will be outstanding upon the commencement of trading.
Moreover, all of the equity securities and futures contracts held by the Fund will trade on markets that are a member of Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) or affiliated with a member of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
As noted above, the Fund will comply with the requirements for Managed Fund Shares related to Disclosed Portfolio, Net Asset Value, and the Intraday Indicative Value. Additionally, the intra-day, closing and settlement prices of exchange-traded portfolio assets, including ETFs and futures, will be readily available from the securities exchanges and futures exchanges trading such securities and futures, as the case may be, automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, or online information services such as Bloomberg or Reuters. Intraday price quotations on both listed and OTC swaps, TIPS, and fixed income instruments are available from major broker-dealer firms and from third-parties, which may provide prices free with a time delay or in real-time for a paid fee. Price information for cash equivalents will be available from major market data vendors. The Disclosed Portfolio will be available on the issuer's website free of charge. The Fund's website includes a form of the prospectus for the Fund and additional information related to NAV and other applicable quantitative information. Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continuously available throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. Quotation and last sale information on the Shares will be available through the Consolidated Tape Association. Information regarding the previous day's closing price and trading volume for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers. Trading in the Shares may be halted for market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading inadvisable. The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate trading in the shares during all trading sessions.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and
In addition, the Information Circular will advise members, prior to the commencement of trading, of the prospectus delivery requirements applicable to the Fund. Members purchasing Shares from the Fund for resale to investors will deliver a prospectus to such investors. The Information Circular will also discuss any exemptive, no-action and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act.
In addition, the Information Circular will reference that the Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Information Circular will also disclose the trading hours of the Shares of the Fund and the applicable NAV calculation time for the Shares. The Information Circular will disclose that information about the Shares of the Fund will be publicly available on the Fund's website.
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, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that the Shares will meet each of the initial and continued listing criteria in BZX Rule 14.11(i) except that the Fund may not comply with Rules 14.11(i)(4)(C)(iv)(a),
As it relates to Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(v), which provides that the notional value of OTC Derivatives shall not exceed 20% of the weight of the portfolio (including gross notional exposures), in an effort to mitigate counterparty risk and exposure to potentially illiquid and manipulable derivatives contracts, the Exchange notes that the Fund will attempt to limit counterparty risk in non-cleared OTC swap contracts, namely total return swaps, by entering into such contracts only with counterparties the Adviser believes are creditworthy and by limiting the Fund's exposure to each counterparty. The Adviser will monitor the creditworthiness of each counterparty and the Fund's exposure to each counterparty on an ongoing basis. OTC Inflation Swaps and interest rate swaps held by the Fund will be centrally cleared. Further, the Exchange notes that notional principal never changes hands in such swaps transactions, and it is a theoretical value used to base the exchanged payments. A more accurate representation of the swaps value in order to monitor total counterparty risk would be the mark-to market value of the swap since inception, which the Adviser generally expects to remain at around 5% of the Fund's net assets.
As it relates to the requirement in Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(iv)(a) that at least 90% of the weight of the listed derivatives portion of the portfolio be in listed derivatives for which the Exchange may obtain information via ISG or for which the principal market is a market with which the Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement, the Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws. Additionally, all of the instruments that would not meet this requirement would nevertheless have a primary market that is a swap execution facility that is registered with and under the regulatory oversight of the CFTC.
Trading of the Shares through the Exchange will be subject to the Exchange's surveillance procedures for derivative products, including Managed Fund Shares. All of the futures contracts, equity securities, and certain of the listed Inflation Swaps, listed credit default swaps, and listed interest
The Exchange notes that the Fund will meet and be subject to all other requirements of the Generic Listing Rules and other applicable continued listing requirements for Managed Fund Shares under Rule 14.11(i), including those requirements regarding the Disclosed Portfolio and the requirement that the Disclosed Portfolio and the NAV will be made available to all market participants at the same time,
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, rather will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional actively-managed exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among both market participants and listing venues, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 4, is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
As noted above, the Fund may hold up to 50% of the weight of its portfolio (including gross notional exposure) in Inflation Hedging Instruments, including certain derivatives, in a manner that may not comply with the generic listing requirements in Rules 14.11(i)(4)(C)(iv)(a), 14.11(i)(4)(C)(iv)(b), and 14.11(i)(4)(C)(v).
The Exchange states that the Fund's investments in certain listed credit default swaps, certain listed interest rate swaps, and certain listed Inflation Swaps will not meet the generic listing requirement that at least 90% of the weight of the listed derivatives holdings in the portfolio be in listed derivatives for which the Exchange may obtain information via the ISG from other members or affiliates of the ISG or for which the principal market is a market with which the Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
The Exchange states that the Fund's investments in listed derivatives, including U.S. Treasury futures, listed credit default swaps, listed Inflation Swaps, and listed interest rate swaps, will not meet the generic listing requirement that the aggregate gross notional value of listed derivatives based on any single underlying reference asset not exceed 30% of the weight of the portfolio.
The Exchange states that the Fund's holdings in OTC derivatives, which include OTC total return swaps, OTC interest rate swaps, and OTC Inflation Swaps, will exceed 20% of the weight of the portfolio and, therefore, not meet the generic listing requirements.
The Commission also finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act,
The Commission also believes that the proposal is reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be necessary to price the Shares appropriately and to prevent trading when a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be assured. As required by Rule 14.11(i)(4)(A)(ii), the Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. Further, trading in the Shares may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable.
The Exchange states that it has a policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees. The Exchange states that the Adviser is not a registered broker-dealer but the Adviser is affiliated with multiple broker-dealer and has implemented and will maintain “fire walls” with respect to such broker-dealers regarding access to information concerning the composition of and/or changes to the Fund's portfolio. Further, the Commission notes that the Reporting Authority that provides the Disclosed Portfolio must implement and maintain, or be subject to, procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material, non-public information regarding the actual components of the portfolio.
The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. In support of this proposal, the Exchange represents that:
(1) Other than Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(iv)(a), Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(iv)(b), and Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(v), the Fund will comply with all other requirements for Managed Fund Shares under Rule 14.11(i).
(2) The Fund may to hold up to 50% of the weight of its portfolio (including gross notional exposure) in Inflation Hedging Instruments, which includes only the listed and OTC derivatives as described above. The Fund will only use derivative instruments to attempt to mitigate the inflation risk of the
(3) At least 100,000 Shares will be outstanding upon the commencement of trading.
(4) Trading of the Shares on the Exchange will be subject to the Exchange's surveillance procedures for derivative products, and these procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws.
(5) The Exchange, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate regarding trading in the Shares and the underlying futures contracts, equity securities, and certain of the listed swaps held by the Fund with the ISG, other markets or entities who are members or affiliates of the ISG, or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, the Exchange, FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, or both may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and the underlying futures contracts, equity securities, and certain of the listed swaps held by the Fund via the ISG from other markets or entities who are members or affiliates of the ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, may access, as needed, trade information for certain fixed income instruments reported to FINRA's Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine.
(6) Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following: (a) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in creation units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (b) Rule 3.7, which imposes suitability obligations on Exchange members with respect to recommending transactions in the Shares to customers; (c) how information regarding the Intraday Indicative Value and Disclosed Portfolio is disseminated; (d) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Pre-Opening and After Hours Trading Sessions when an updated Intraday Indicative Value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (e) the requirement that members deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (f) trading information.
(7) All of the equity securities and futures contracts, and certain of the listed Inflation Swaps, listed credit default swaps, and listed interest rate swaps held by the Fund will trade on markets that are a member of ISG or affiliated with a member of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
(8) The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions.
(9) For initial and continued listing of the Shares, the Trust must be in compliance with Rule 10A–3 under the Act.
The Exchange represents that all statements and representations made in the filing regarding (1) the description of the portfolio or reference assets; (2) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets; (3) dissemination and availability of index, reference asset, and Intraday Indicative Values; and (4) the applicability of Exchange rules specified in the rule filing constitute continued listing requirements for the Fund. In addition, the issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund or the Shares to comply with the continued listing requirements and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will surveil for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Fund or the Shares is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under Exchange Rule 14.12.
This approval order is based on all of the Exchange's statements and representations, including those set forth above and in Amendment No. 4.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 4, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning Amendment No. 4 to the proposed rule change. 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 good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 4, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of notice of Amendment No. 4 in the
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend Nasdaq Rule 5735 to make a technical adjustment to its rules to allow sub-penny quoting and order entry in Managed Fund Shares. This filing is substantively identical to the relevant portion of a NYSE Arca, Inc. filing (SR–NYSEArca–2010–36).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to make a technical adjustment [sic] its rules to allow sub-penny quoting of Managed Fund Shares. Currently, Nasdaq Rule 5735 restricts the minimum price variation for quoting and order entry to $0.01. Consistent with Regulation NMS Rule 612, the Exchange proposes to remove this provision to allow such securities to be quoted in a minimum pricing increment of $0.0001 for securities priced less than $1.00. The Exchange notes that it has not had any of the aforementioned securities quote below a dollar nor does it anticipate such an occurrence in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Exchange simply seeks to harmonize the minimum price variation in the aforementioned product with other equity securities traded on the Exchange.
Moreover, the Exchange notes that this approach is substantially similar to the approach taken by NYSE Arca in 2010 in eliminating NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 Commentary .03, which restricted the minimum price variation for quoting and order entry for Managed Fund Shares to $0.01.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment is consistent with the goal of removing impediments to a free and open market because the changes proposed herein will substantially harmonize Nasdaq's sub-penny quoting and order entry rules with Rule 612 of Regulation NMS which allows a minimum pricing increment of $0.0001 for securities priced less than $1.00.
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 and the proposed rule change may serve to enhance competition and put the exchange on an equal competitive footing as it pertains to sub-penny quoting and order entry for Managed Fund Shares.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b–4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange 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 given that the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “
Section 203(h) of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that if the Commission finds that any person registered under Section 203, or who has pending an application for registration filed under that section, is no longer in existence, is not engaged in business as an investment adviser, or is prohibited from registering as an investment adviser under section 203A, the Commission shall by order cancel the registration of such person.
Each registrant listed in the attached Appendix either (a) has not filed a Form ADV amendment with the Commission as required by rule 204–1 under the Act and appears to be no longer in business as an investment adviser or (b) has indicated on Form ADV that it is no longer eligible to remain registered with the Commission as an investment adviser but has not filed Form ADV–W to withdraw its registration. Accordingly, the Commission believes that reasonable grounds exist for a finding that these registrants are no longer in existence, are not engaged in business as investment advisers, or are prohibited from registering as investment advisers under section 203A, and that their registrations should be cancelled pursuant to section 203(h) of the Act.
Notice is also given that any interested person may, by February 26, 2018, at 5:30 p.m., submit to the Commission in writing a request for a hearing on the cancellation of the
At any time after February 26, 2018, the Commission may issue an order or orders cancelling the registrations of any or all of the registrants listed in the attached Appendix, upon the basis of the information stated above, unless an order or orders for a hearing on the cancellation shall be issued upon request or upon the Commission's own motion. Persons who requested a hearing, or to be advised as to whether a hearing is ordered, will receive any notices and orders issued in this matter, including the date of the hearing (if ordered) and any postponements thereof. Any registrant whose registration is cancelled under delegated authority may appeal that decision directly to the Commission in accordance with rules 430 and 431 of the Commission's rules of practice (17 CFR 201.430 and 431).
The Commission: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549–1090.
Matthew Cook, Attorney Adviser, at 202–551–6999; SEC, Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Adviser Regulation, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549–8549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 11, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201–E,
The sponsors of the Trust will be Gold Corporation (“Custodial Sponsor”) and Exchange Traded Concepts, LLC (“ETC” or the “Administrative Sponsor” and, together with the Custodial Sponsor, the “Sponsors”)
After careful review, the Commission finds that the Exchange's proposed rule change to list and trade the Shares is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
Additionally, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act,
The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be necessary to price the Shares appropriately. NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201(e)(2)(v) requires that an intraday indicative value (“IIV,” which is referred to in the rule as the “Indicative Trust Value”) be calculated and disseminated at least every 15 seconds. The IIV will be calculated based on the amount of gold held by the Trust and a price of gold derived from updated bids and offers indicative of the spot price of gold. The Exchange states that the IIV relating to the Shares will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Core Trading Session.
The Commission also believes that the proposal is reasonably designed to prevent trading when a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be assured. With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares. Trading on the Exchange in the Shares 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 conditions in the underlying gold market have caused disruptions and/or lack of trading, or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. In addition, trading in Shares will be subject to trading halts caused by extraordinary market volatility pursuant to the Exchange's “circuit breaker” rule.
Additionally, the Commission notes that market makers in the Shares will be subject to the requirements of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201–E(g), which are designed to allow the Exchange to ensure that they do not use their positions to violate the requirements of Exchange rules or applicable federal securities laws.
In support of this proposal, the Exchange has made the following additional representations:
(1) The Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201–E.
(2) The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions.
(3) The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities.
(4) The Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
(5) Trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances administered by the Exchange, as well as cross-market surveillances administered by FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws, and that these procedures are adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and federal securities laws applicable to trading on the Exchange.
(6) The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares 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 from such markets and other entities. In addition, the
(7) Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its ETP Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Bulletin will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Baskets (including noting that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) NYSE Arca Rule 9.2–E(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its ETP Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (3) how information regarding the IIV is disseminated; (4) the requirement that ETP Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; (5) the possibility that trading spreads and the resulting premium or discount on the Shares may widen as a result of reduced liquidity of gold trading during the Core and Late Trading Sessions after the close of the major world gold markets; and (6) trading information.
(8) All statements and representations made in this filing regarding (a) the description of the portfolio, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, or (c) the applicability of Exchange listing rules specified in this rule filing shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares of the Trust on the Exchange.
(9) The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Trust 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 Trust is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under NYSE Arca Rule 5.5(m).
This approval order is based on all of the Exchange's representations—including those set forth above and in the Notice—and the Exchange's description of the Trust.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) and 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Small Business Administration.
30-Day notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is publishing this notice to comply with requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which requires agencies to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before March 5, 2018.
Comments should refer to the information collection by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to:
Curtis Rich, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205–7030
Lenders requesting SBA to purchase the guaranty portion of a loan are required to supply the Agency with a certified transcript of the loan account. This form is uniform and convenient means for lenders to report and certify loan accounts to purchase by SBA. The Agency uses the information to determine date of loan default and whether Lender disbursed and serviced the loan according to Loan Guaranty agreement.
(1)
Small Business Administration.
30-Day notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is publishing this notice to comply with requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA),which requires agencies to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before March 5, 2018.
Comments should refer to the information collection by name and/
Curtis Rich, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205–7030
For financial assistance programs authorized by section 7(a) and (b) of the Small Business Act and Title V of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, SBA regulations require any loan guarantor and individual owners of the small business applicant to submit a personal financial statement to provide information on their assets and liabilities.
For the 8(a) Business Development (BD), Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), and Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) programs the information is necessary for SBA to determine if the applicant or participant meets the economic disadvantage requirements to participate in these programs. SBA regulations at 13 CFR 124.104, 124.112, 124.1002, and 13 CFR 127.203 require, among other things, that applicants and participants submit financial information to facilitate this determination.
Comments may be submitted on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
(1)
Small Business Administration.
30-day notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is publishing this notice to comply with requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which requires agencies to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before March 5, 2018.
Comments should refer to the information collection by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to:
Curtis Rich, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205–7030
The objective of the debt collection activities is to obtain immediate repayment or arrive at a satisfactory arrangement for future repayment of debts owed to the Government. SBA uses the financial information provided by the debtor on Form 770 in making a determination regarding the compromise of such debts and other liquidation proceedings including litigation by the Agency and/or the Department of Justice.
(1)
Social Security Administration (SSA).
Notice of a new matching program.
In accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act, as amended, this notice announces a new matching program with Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA).
This computer matching agreement sets forth the terms, conditions, and safeguards under which VA/VBA will provide SSA with compensation and pension payment data. This disclosure will provide SSA with information necessary to verify an individual's self-certification of eligibility for the Medicare Prescription Drug (Medicare Part D) subsidy (Extra Help). It will also enable SSA to identify individuals who may qualify for Extra Help as part of the agency's Medicare outreach efforts.
The deadline to submit comments on the proposed matching program is 30 days from the date of publication in the
Interested parties may comment on this notice by either telefaxing to (410) 966–0869, writing to Mary Ann Zimmerman, Acting Executive Director, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, 617 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, or emailing
Interested parties may submit general questions about the matching program to Mary Ann Zimmerman, Acting Executive Director, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, by any of the means shown above.
SSA and VA/VBA.
Legal authorities for SSA to conduct this computer matching are sections 1860D–14(a)(3), 1144(a)(1) and (b)(1) of the Social Security Act (Act) (42 U.S.C. 1395w–114(a)(3), 1320b–14(a)(1) and (b)(1).
The purpose of this matching program is to set forth the conditions under which VA/VBA will provide SSA with compensation and pension payment data. This disclosure will provide SSA with information necessary to verify an individual's self-certification of eligibility for the Medicare Prescription Drug (Medicare Part D) subsidy (Extra Help). It will also enable SSA to identify individuals who may qualify for Extra Help as part of the agency's Medicare outreach efforts.
SSA will use VA/VBA's data to determine an individual's eligibility for Extra Help and to identify such individuals to the state agencies that administer the Medicare Savings Program (MSP), unless those individuals do not consent to share their information with the state agencies.
Under section 1860D–14 of the Act, SSA is required to determine the eligibility of applicants who self-certify their income, resources, and family size for Extra Help. SSA is responsible for verifying, on a pre-enrollment basis, an applicant's income and resource allegations. SSA periodically redetermines the eligibility and subsidy amounts for these individuals, thereafter. Also, section 1144 of the Act requires SSA to conduct outreach efforts for MSP and subsidized Medicare prescription drug coverage.
The individuals whose information is involved in this matching program are:
Medicare beneficiaries who are potentially eligible for Extra Help with their Medicare prescription drug plan costs.
VA/VBA will furnish SSA with an electronic file containing compensation and pension payment data monthly. The actual matching will take place approximately the first week of every month.
SSA will conduct the match using the Social Security number, name, date of birth, and VA/VBA claim number on both the file and the Medicare Database (MDB). SSA will match VA/VBA's data with data in SSA's MDB system of records, 60–0321 to verify an individual's self-certification of eligibility for Extra Help.
VA/VBA will provide SSA with electronic files containing compensation and pension payment data from its SOR entitled “Compensation, Pension, Education, and Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Records—VA” (58VA21/22/28), republished with updated name at 74 FR 14865 (April 1, 2009) and last amended at 77 FR 42593 (July 19, 2012).
SSA will match the VA/VBA data with SSA SOR 60–0321, SSA's MDB file, last published at 71 FR 42159 (July 25, 2006) and amended at 72 FR 6973 (December 10, 2007).
The systems of records involved in this matching program have routine uses permitting the disclosures needed to conduct this match.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104–13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes an extension of an OMB-approved information collection, a new information collection, and revisions of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
Or you may submit your comments online through
I. The information collections below are pending at SSA. SSA will submit them to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than April 2, 2018. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instruments by writing to the above email address.
1.
2.
3.
II. SSA submitted the information collections below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding these information collections would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than March 5, 2018. Individuals can obtain copies of the OMB clearance packages by writing to
1.
2.
3.
4.
For SSI purposes, we consider a loan bona fide if it meets these requirements:
• Must be between a borrower and lender with the understanding that the borrower has an obligation to repay the money;
• Must be in effect at the time the cash goes to the borrower, that is, the agreement cannot come after the cash is paid; and
• Must be enforceable under State law, often there are additional requirements from the State.
SSA collects this information at the time of initial application for SSI, or at any point when an individual alleges being party to an informal loan while receiving SSI. SSA collects information on the informal loan through both interviews and mailed forms. The agency's field personnel conduct the interviews and mail the form(s) for completion, as needed. The respondents are SSI recipients and applicants, and individuals who lend money to them.
5.
6.
Surface Transportation Board.
Adoption of Railroad Cost Recovery Procedures Productivity Adjustment.
In a decision served on January 29, 2018, the Surface Transportation Board adopted as final its calculation of the productivity adjustment, with the linking factor for the year 2015, proposed in its September 29, 2017 decision in the same docket.
Pedro Ramirez, (202) 245–0333. Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the hearing impaired, (800) 877–8339.
Additional information is contained in the Board's decision, which is available on the Board's website,
By the Board, Board Members Begeman and Miller.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Request for public comment.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is requesting public comment on Los Angeles World Airports' (LAWA) request to change approximately 5 acres of airport property from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use.
The property is located at the northeast intersection of Westchester Parkway and Falmouth Avenue. The property is currently vacant land with no structures onsite. LAWA requests to develop the land with the Argo Drain Sub-Basin Facility. The Sub-Basin Facility is primarily an underground storm water treatment facility designed to potentially allow open space uses on the surface. The Sub-Basin Facility also includes two above-ground elements: A pump facility and blower building.
Documents reflecting the LAWA's request are available, by appointment only, at the FAA Los Angeles Airports District Office.
Comments must be received on or before March 5, 2018.
Documents are available for review at the FAA Los Angeles Airports District Office, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Room 3000, Lawndale, CA 90261, 310–725–3608. Written comments on LAWA's request must be delivered or mailed, 2 copies to: Lemuel del Castillo, 15000 Aviation Boulevard Room 3000, Lawndale, CA 90261, 310–725–3651.
Lemuel del Castillo, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Room 3000, Lawndale, CA 90261, 310–725–3651.
Section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR–21) requires the FAA to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment prior to the “waiver” or “modification” of a sponsor's Federal obligation to use certain airport land for aeronautical purposes.
Under part 211 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this provides the public notice that on December 22, 2017, the Minnesota Northern Railroad (MNN) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an extension of a waiver from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 223. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA–2001–10214.
Specifically, the MNN seeks to extend its existing waiver from 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 223.13, regarding the glazing on caboose (MNN 019.
The MNN states that the circumstances at the time of the original grant of waiver have not changed. The caboose is still only used on special occasions as an office car for officials and private persons for railroad business purposes. The territory that it operates in is primarily rural.
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 March 19, 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
Issued in Washington, DC.
Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this provides the public notice that on January 5, 2018, Northern Plains Railroad (NPR), petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 229. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA–2018–0006.
Specifically, NPR seeks a waiver of compliance from a portion of 49 CFR 229.47,
NPR is a regional railroad operating on a 350-mile network in North Dakota and western Minnesota. NPR's primary commodities handled include wheat, soybeans, corn, aggregates, and miscellaneous industrial products. The maximum operating speed on the NPR is 25 miles per hour. NPR has had no history of vandalism, two reportable train accidents since 2013, and an injury frequency rate of under one percent for the last two years. NPR indicates that these units will be used in road service and will be paired together. NPR does not see this waiver of compliance adversely affecting safety.
NPR believes that 49 CFR 229.47 was established to provide a crew member a means of initiating an emergency stop when they are unable to give the locomotive operator a visual signal to stop while making a reverse movement. This would only apply to locomotives that do not have an exposed walkway on the end of the car body. The five full body locomotives are all equipped with a walkway and corner steps that provide a position for crew to direct the locomotive engineer while making a reverse movement. Because these end platforms, which are identical to that of a regular body locomotive, are available and equipped with corner steps, NPR crews would not place themselves inside the locomotive engine compartment to direct a reverse movement, thereby making the application of this emergency brake valve meaningless. Therefore, NPR is requesting a waiver from the requirement that an emergency brake pipe valve be installed adjacent to the rear door for these five units.
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 March 19, 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
Issued in Washington, DC.
Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this provides the public notice that on January 17, 2018, SMS Rail Service petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 223. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA–2007–27556.
Specifically, SMS Rail Service (SLRS) is seeking an extension of its waiver of compliance from 49 CFR 223.11,
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 March 19, 2018 will be considered by FRA
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
Issued in Washington, DC.
Under part 211 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this provides the public notice that on January 2, 2018, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 238,
Amtrak plans to lease two articulated Series 8 trainsets from Tren Articulado Ligero Goicoechea Oriol (Talgo) to support its Cascade intercity service. The Cascade service operates between Eugene, OR and Vancouver, BC. The service uses both Talgo Series 6 and Series 8 trainsets. Amtrak currently has two Series 8 trainsets now in service that were purchased by the state of Oregon in 2013. The two train sets to be leased from Talgo were originally built for the state of Wisconsin in 2013 but never purchased. The trainsets have never been operated but have been stored in serviceable condition at the Amtrak Beech Grove facility in Beech Grove, IN.
Amtrak requests relief for the two Talgo Series 8 trainsets from the requirements of 49 CFR 238.131(b),
The Talgo Series 8 trainsets currently in operation have been in service since 2013 and are therefore exempt from the requirements of §§ 238.131(b) and 238.133 because they were ordered prior to April 5, 2016 and placed into service prior to February 5, 2018. The Talgo Series 8 trainsets to be leased are identical to the Series 8 trainsets currently in operation. The relief would apply only to the trainsets to be leased from Talgo that have never been placed in service.
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, 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 March 19, 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
Issued in Washington, DC.
Under part 211 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this provides the public notice that on January 23, 2018, Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company (GTW), which operates under the trade name Canadian National Railway (CN), has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an extension of an existing waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR 236.408,
In 2002 CN requested permission to operate the 32nd Street Crossover, power operated switches, at milepost 333.28, in the existing traffic control system, at Port Huron, Michigan, on the Flint Subdivision, Midwest Division, without Route Locking. The request was based on the fact that the crossover design is not uncommon in the railroad industry, and provides all the requisite components and safety features of a standard interlocking, or an electric lock location. FRA initially granted CN's request in 2003, extending the relief in 2008 and 2013.
CN states that it has operated under this waiver for fifteen years without
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 March 19, 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
Issued in Washington, DC.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
A.
1.
The CDFI Fund reserves the right to award more or less than the amounts cited above in each category, based upon available funding and other factors, as appropriate.
2.
3.
B.
1.
2.
The PPC–FA award is evaluated independently from the FA award and will not affect the FA award evaluation or amount.
3.
4.
5.
C.
1.
Eligible Market is defined as (i) a geographic area meeting the requirements set forth in 12 CFR 1805.201(b)(3)(ii), or (ii) individuals that are Low-Income or are African American, Hispanic or American Indian, Native Hawaiians residing in Hawaii, Native Alaskans residing in Alaska, and Other Pacific Islanders residing in American Samoa, Guam or the Northern Mariana Islands.
2.
3.
4.
a. Recipient must close Financial Products for Healthy Food Retail Outlets and Healthy Food Non-Retail Outlets in its Target Market in an amount equal to or greater than 100 percent of the total HFFI Financial Assistance provided. Eligible financing activities to Healthy Food Retail Outlets and Healthy Food Non-Retail Outlets require that the majority of the loan or investment be devoted to offering a range of Healthy Food choice, which may include, among other activities, investments supporting an existing retail store or wholesale operation upgrade to offer an expanded range of Healthy Food choices, or supporting a nonprofit organization that expands the availability of Healthy Foods in underserved areas.
b. Recipient must demonstrate that it has closed Financial Products to Healthy Food Retail Outlets located in Food Deserts in the Recipient's Target Market in an amount equal to 75 percent of the total HFFI Financial Assistance provided.
5.
The specific counties that meet the criteria for “persistent poverty” can be found at:
A.
B.
A.
B.
C.
All Applicants must register in the
D.
E.
F.
1.
2.
a.
b.
3.
However, in cases where a Federal government administrative or technological error directly resulted in a late submission of the SF–424 or the Application, Applicants are provided two opportunities to submit a written request for acceptance of late submissions. The CDFI Fund does not consider a delay in any Federal government process to constitute a Federal government administrative or technological error. The CDFI Fund will not consider a late submission of the SF–424 or the Application that was a direct result of a delay in a Federal Government process, unless such delay was the result of a Federal government administrative or technological error.
a.
b.
G.
1.
a. A Recipient shall use FA funds only for the eligible activities described in Section II.(C)(1) of this NOFA and its Assistance Agreement.
b. A Recipient may not distribute FA funds to an Affiliate, Subsidiary, or any other entity, without the CDFI Fund's prior written approval.
c. FA funds shall only be paid to the Recipient.
d. The CDFI Fund, in its sole discretion, may pay FA funds in amounts, or under terms and conditions, which are different from those requested by an Applicant.
e. The Recipient must comply, as applicable, with the Buy American Act of 1933, 41 U.S.C. 8301–8303, with respect to any Direct Costs.
2.
a. A Recipient shall use PPC–FA funds only for the eligible activities described in Section II.(C)(5) of this NOFA and its Assistance Agreement.
b. A Recipient may not distribute PPC–FA funds to an Affiliate, Subsidiary, or any other entity, without the CDFI Fund's prior written approval.
c. PPC–FA funds shall only be paid to the Recipient.
d. The CDFI Fund, in its sole discretion, may pay PPC–FA funds in amounts, or under terms and conditions, which are different from those requested by an Applicant.
e. The Recipient must comply, as applicable, with the Buy American Act of 1933, 41 U.S.C. 8301–8303, with respect to any Direct Costs.
3.
a. A Recipient shall use DF–FA funds only for the eligible activities described in Section II.(C)(2) of this NOFA and its Assistance Agreement.
b. A Recipient may not distribute DF–FA funds to an Affiliate, Subsidiary, or any other entity, without the CDFI Fund's prior written approval.
c. DF–FA funds shall only be paid to the Recipient.
d. The CDFI Fund, in its sole discretion, may pay DF–FA funds in amounts, or under terms and conditions, which are different from those requested by an Applicant.
e. The Recipient must comply, as applicable, with the Buy American Act of 1933, 41 U.S.C. 8301–8303, with respect to any Direct Costs.
2.
a. A Recipient shall use HFFI–FA funds only for the eligible activities described in Section II.(C)(4) of this NOFA and its Assistance Agreement.
b. A Recipient may not distribute HFFI–FA funds to an Affiliate, Subsidiary, or any other entity, without the CDFI Fund's prior written approval.
c. HFFI–FA funds shall only be paid to the Recipient.
d. The CDFI Fund, in its sole discretion, may pay HFFI–FA funds in amounts, or under terms and conditions, which are different from those requested by an Applicant.
e. The Recipient must comply, as applicable, with the Buy American Act of 1933, 41 U.S.C. 8301–8303, with respect to any Direct Costs.
3.
a. A Recipient shall use TA funds only for the eligible activities described in Section II.(C)(3) of this NOFA and its Assistance Agreement.
b. A Sponsoring Entity award Recipient must create, as a legal entity, the Emerging CDFI no later than the end of the first year of the period of performance, whereupon the Sponsoring Entity must request the CDFI Fund to amend the Assistance
c. A Recipient may not distribute TA funds to an Affiliate, Subsidiary or any other entity, without the CDFI Fund's prior written consent.
d. TA funds shall only be paid to the Recipient.
e. The CDFI Fund, in its sole discretion, may pay TA funds in amounts, or under terms and conditions, which are different from those requested by an Applicant.
f. The Recipient must comply, as applicable, with the Buy American Act of 1933, 41 U.S.C. 8301–8303, with respect to any Direct Costs.
A.
1.
a.
b.
For the financial health analysis, each Application will receive a Total Financial Composite Score on a scale of one (1) to five (5), with one (1) being the highest rating. The Total Financial Composite Score is based on the analysis of twenty-four (24) financial indicators. Applications will be grouped based on the Total Financial Composite Score. Applicants must receive a Total Financial Composite Score of one (1), two (2), or three (3) to advance to Step 3. Applicants that receive an initial Total Financial Composite Score of four (4) or five (5) will be re-evaluated and re-scored by CDFI Fund staff. If the Total Financial Composite Score remains four (4) or five (5) after CDFI Fund staff review, the Applicant will not advance to Step 3.
For the compliance analysis, the CDFI Fund will evaluate the compliance risk of each Application using information provided in the Application. Each Application will receive a Total Compliance Composite Score on a scale of one (1) to five (5), with one (1) being the highest rating. Applicants must receive a Total Compliance Composite Score of one (1), two (2), or three (3) to advance to Step 3. Applicants that receive an initial Total Compliance Composite Score of four (4) or five (5) will be re-evaluated and re-scored by CDFI Fund Staff. If the Total Compliance Composite Score remains four (4) or five (5) after CDFI Staff review, the Applicant will not advance to Step 3.
c.
d.
e.
2.
The CDFI Fund conducts additional levels of due diligence for Applications that are in scoring contention for an HFFI–FA award. This due diligence includes an analysis of programmatic and financial risk factors including, but not limited to, financial stability, quality of management systems and ability to meet award management standards, history of performance in managing Federal awards (including timeliness of reporting and compliance), reports and findings from audits, and the Applicant's ability to effectively implement Federal requirements. Award amounts may be reduced from the requested award amount as a result of this analysis. The CDFI Fund may reduce awards sizes from requested amounts based on certain variables, including an Applicant's loan disbursement activity, total portfolio outstanding, and similar factors. Lastly, the CDFI Fund may consider the geographic diversity of Applicants when making its funding decisions.
3.
4.
5.
An Applicant that is a Certified CDFI will be evaluated on the demonstrated need for TA funding to build the CDFI's capacity, further the Applicant's strategic goals, and achieve impact within the Applicant's Target Market. An Applicant that is an Emerging CDFI or Certifiable CDFI will be evaluated on the Applicant's demonstrated capability and plan to achieve CDFI certification within three years, or if a prior awardee, the certification performance goal and measure stated in its prior Assistance Agreement. An Applicant that is an Emerging CDFI and Certifiable CDFI will also be evaluated on its demonstrated need for TA funding to build the CDFI's capacity and further its strategic goals. An Applicant that is a Sponsoring Entity will be rated on the Applicant's demonstrated capability to create a separate legal entity within one year that will achieve CDFI certification within four years. An Applicant that is a Sponsoring Entity will also be rated on its demonstrated need for TA funding to build the CDFI's capacity and further its strategic goals.
The CDFI Fund will score each part of the TA Business Plan Review as indicated in Table 17.
Each TA Application will be evaluated by one internal CDFI Fund reviewer. Internal reviewers must complete the CDFI Fund's conflict of interest process. The CDFI Fund's application conflict of interest policy is located on the CDFI Fund's website. All Applications will be reviewed in accordance with CDFI Fund standard reviewer evaluation materials for the Business Plan Review. Applications will be ranked based on Total TA Business Plan Score, in descending order. In the case of tied scores that would prohibit the Application from progressing to the next level of review, Certified Applicants will be ranked first according to each Organization Overview score and Emerging CDFI, Certifiable CDFI, and Sponsoring Entity Applicants will be ranked first according to the total Section I score.
The CDFI Fund conducts additional levels of due diligence for Applications that are in scoring contention for an award. This due diligence includes an analysis of programmatic and financial risk factors including, but not limited to, financial stability, history of performance in managing Federal awards (including timeliness of reporting and compliance), reports and findings from audits, and the Applicant's ability to effectively implement Federal requirements. The CDFI Fund will also evaluate the Applicant's ability to meet certification criteria of being a legal entity and a non-government entity. Award amounts may be reduced as a result of this analysis in addition to consideration of the eligibility of an Applicant's funding request and similar factors. Lastly, the CDFI Fund may consider the geographic diversity of Applicants when making its funding decisions.
6.
7.
B.
C.
D.
A.
B.
1.
2.
The CDFI Fund will minimize the time between the Recipient incurring costs for eligible activities and award payment in accordance with the Uniform Requirements. The advanced payments for eligible activities will occur no more than one year in advance of the Recipient incurring costs for the eligible activities. Following the initial closing, there may be subsequent closings involving additional award payments. Any documentation in addition to the Assistant Agreement that is connected with such subsequent closings and payments shall be properly executed and timely delivered by the Recipient to the CDFI Fund.
3.
In addition, the CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to terminate and rescind the Assistance Agreement and the award made under this NOFA pending the criteria described in the following table:
C.
1.
Each Recipient is responsible for the timely and complete submission of the Annual Reporting requirements. Sponsoring Entities with co-awardees will be informed of any reporting shifts at the time the Emerging CDFI is adjoined to the Agreement. The CDFI Fund reserves the right to contact the Recipient and additional entities or signatories to the Assistance Agreement to request additional information and documentation. The CDFI Fund will use such information to monitor each Recipient's compliance with the requirements in the Assistance Agreement and to assess the impact of the NACA Program. The CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to modify these reporting requirements, including increasing the scope and frequency of reporting, if it determines it to be appropriate and necessary; however, such reporting requirements will be modified only after notice to Recipients.
2.
The cost principles used by Recipients must be consistent with Federal cost principles and support the accumulation of costs as required by the principles, and must provide for adequate documentation to support costs charged to the NACA Program award. In addition, the CDFI Fund will require Recipients to: Maintain effective internal controls; comply with applicable statutes, regulations, and the Assistance Agreement; evaluate and monitor compliance; take action when not in compliance; and safeguard personally identifiable information.
A. The CDFI Fund will respond to questions concerning this NOFA and the Application between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, starting on the date that the NOFA is published through the date listed in Table 1 and Table 12. The CDFI Fund strongly recommends applicants submit questions to the CDFI Fund via an AMIS service request to the NACA Program, Certification, Compliance Monitoring and Evaluation, or IT Help Desk. The CDFI Fund will post on its website responses to reoccurring questions received about this Application. Other information regarding the CDFI Fund and its programs may be obtained from the CDFI Fund's website at
B.
C.
D.
A.
B.
2 U.S.C. 4701,
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
1.
The CDFI Fund reserves the right to award more or less than the amounts cited above in each category, based upon available funding and other factors, as appropriate.
2.
3.
B.
1.
2.
The PPC–FA award is evaluated independently from the FA award and will not affect the FA award evaluation or amount.
3.
4.
5.
C. Eligible Activities:
1.
The Recipient must comply, as applicable, with the Buy American Act of 1933, 41 U.S.C. 8301–8303, with respect to any Direct Costs. For purposes of this NOFA, the five eligible activity categories are defined as follows:
2.
3.
4.
a. Recipient must close Financial Products for Healthy Food Retail Outlets and Healthy Food Non-Retail Outlets in its Target Market in an amount equal to or greater than 100 percent of the total HFFI Financial Assistance provided. Eligible financing activities to Healthy Food Retail Outlets and Healthy Food Non-Retail Outlets require that the majority of the loan or investment be devoted to offering a range of Healthy Food choice, which may include, among other activities, investments supporting an existing retail store or wholesale operation upgrade to offer an expanded range of Healthy Food choices, or supporting a nonprofit organization that expands the availability of Healthy Foods in underserved areas.
b. Recipient must demonstrate that it has closed Financial Products to Healthy Food Retail Outlets located in Food Deserts in the Recipient's Target Market in an amount equal to 75% of the total HFFI Financial Assistance provided.
5.
A.
B.
A.
B.
C.
All Applicants must register in the
Each Application must be signed by a designated Authorized Representative in AMIS before it can be submitted. Applicants must ensure that an Authorized Representative is authorized to sign legal documents on behalf of the organization. Consultants working on behalf of the organization cannot be designated as Authorized Representatives. Only a designated Authorized Representative or Application Point of Contact, included in the Application, may submit the Application in AMIS. If an Authorized Representative or Application Point of Contact does not submit the application, the application will be deemed ineligible.
D.
E.
F.
1.
2.
a.
b. AMIS Submission Information: AMIS is a web-based portal where Applicants will directly enter their application information and add the required attachments listed in Table 10. AMIS will verify that the Applicant provided the minimum information required to submit an Application. Applicants are responsible for the quality and accuracy of the information and attachments included in the Application submitted in AMIS. The CDFI Fund strongly encourages the Applicant to allow sufficient time to confirm the Application content, review the material submitted, and remedy any issues prior to the Application deadline. Each Application must be signed by an Authorized Representative in AMIS before it can be submitted. Applicants must ensure that an Authorized Representative is authorized to sign legal documents on behalf of the organization. Consultants working on behalf of the organization may not be designated as Authorized Representatives. Only an Authorized Representative or an Application Point of Contact can submit the Application. If an Authorized Representative or Application Point of Contact does not submit the application, the application will be deemed ineligible. Applicants can only submit one Application. Upon submission, the Application will be locked and cannot be resubmitted, edited, or modified in any way. The CDFI Fund will not unlock or allow multiple Application submissions.
3.
However, in cases where a Federal government administrative or technological error directly resulted in a late submission of the SF–424 or the Application, Applicants are provided two opportunities to submit a written request for acceptance of late submissions. The CDFI Fund does not consider a delay in any Federal government process to constitute a Federal government administrative or technological error. The CDFI Fund will not consider a late submission of the SF–424 or the Application that was a direct result of a delay in a Federal Government process, unless such delay was the result of a Federal government administrative or technological error.
a. SF–424 Late Submission: In cases where a Federal government administrative or technological error directly resulted in a late submission of the SF–424, the Applicant must submit a written request for acceptance of late SF–424 submission and include documentation of the error no later than two business days after the SF–424 deadline. The CDFI Fund will not respond to request for acceptance of late SF–424 submissions after that time period. Applicants must submit late SF–424 submission requests to the CDFI Fund via an AMIS service request to the CDFI Program with a subject line of “Late SF–424 Submission Request.”
b. Application Late Submission: In cases where a Federal government administrative or technological error directly resulted in a late submission of the Application in AMIS, the Applicant must submit a written request for acceptance of late Application submission and include documentation of the error no later than two business days after the Application deadline. The CDFI Fund will not respond to request for acceptance of late Application submissions after that time period. Applicants must submit late Application submission requests to the CDFI Fund via an AMIS service request to the CDFI Program with a subject line of “Late Application Submission Request.”
G.
1.
a. A Recipient shall use FA funds only for the eligible activities described in Section II.(C)(1) of this NOFA and its Assistance Agreement.
b. A Recipient may not distribute FA funds to an Affiliate, Subsidiary, or any other entity, without the CDFI Fund's prior written approval.
c. FA funds shall only be paid to the Recipient.
d. The CDFI Fund, in its sole discretion, may pay FA funds in amounts, or under terms and conditions, which are different from those requested by an Applicant.
e. The Recipient must comply, as applicable, with the Buy American Act of 1933, 41 U.S.C. 8301–8303, with respect to any Direct Costs.
2.
a. A Recipient shall use PPC–FA funds only for the eligible activities described in Section II. (C)(5) of this NOFA and its Assistance Agreement.
b. A Recipient may not distribute PPC–FA funds to an Affiliate, Subsidiary, or any other entity, without the CDFI Fund's prior written approval.
c. PPC–FA funds shall only be paid to the Recipient.
d. The CDFI Fund, in its sole discretion, may pay PPC–FA funds in amounts, or under terms and conditions, which are different from those requested by an Applicant.
e. The Recipient must comply, as applicable, with the Buy American Act of 1933, 41 U.S.C. 8301–8303, with respect to any Direct Costs.
3.
a. A Recipient shall use DF–FA funds only for the eligible activities described in Section II. (C)(2) of this NOFA and its Assistance Agreement.
b. A Recipient may not distribute DF–FA funds to an Affiliate, Subsidiary, or any other entity, without the CDFI Fund's prior written approval.
c. DF–FA funds shall only be paid to the Recipient.
d. The CDFI Fund, in its sole discretion, may pay DF–FA funds in amounts, or under terms and conditions, which are different from those requested by an Applicant.
e. The Recipient must comply, as applicable, with the Buy American Act of 1933, 41 U.S.C. 8301–8303, with respect to any Direct Costs.
2.
a. A Recipient shall use HFFI–FA funds only for the eligible activities described in Section II. (C)(4) of this NOFA and its Assistance Agreement.
b. A Recipient may not distribute HFFI–FA funds to an Affiliate, Subsidiary, or any other entity, without the CDFI Fund's prior written approval.
c. HFFI–FA funds shall only be paid to the Recipient.
d. The CDFI Fund, in its sole discretion, may pay HFFI–FA funds in amounts, or under terms and conditions, which are different from those requested by an Applicant.
e. The Recipient must comply, as applicable, with the Buy American Act of 1933, 41 U.S.C. 8301–8303, with respect to any Direct Costs.
3.
a. A Recipient shall use TA funds only for the eligible activities described in Section II. (C) (3) of this NOFA and its Assistance Agreement.
b. A Recipient may not distribute TA funds to an Affiliate, Subsidiary or any other entity, without the CDFI Fund's prior written consent.
c. TA funds shall only be paid to the Recipient.
d. The CDFI Fund, in its sole discretion, may pay TA funds in amounts, or under terms and conditions, which are different from those requested by an Applicant.
e. The Recipient must comply, as applicable, with the Buy American Act of 1933, 41 U.S.C. 8301–8303, with respect to any Direct Costs.
A.
1.
a. Step 1: Eligibility Review: The CDFI Fund will evaluate each Application to determine its eligibility status per Section III. Eligibility Information of this NOFA.
b. Step 2: Financial Analysis and Compliance Evaluation: Step 2 contains two main components: financial health analysis and compliance risk evaluation. The CDFI Fund will evaluate the financial health and viability of each Application using financial information provided by the Applicant. The CDFI Fund will also evaluate the compliance risk of each Application using information provided in the Application.
For the financial health analysis, each Application will receive a Total Financial Composite Score on a scale of one (1) to five (5), with one (1) being the highest rating. The Total Financial Composite Score is based on the analysis of twenty-four (24) financial indicators. Applications will be grouped based on the Total Financial Composite Score. Applicants must receive a Total Financial Composite Score of one (1), two (2), or three (3) to advance to Step 3. Applicants that receive an initial Total Financial Composite Score of four (4) or five (5) will be re-evaluated and re-scored by CDFI Fund staff. If the Total Financial Composite Score remains four (4) or five (5) after CDFI Fund staff review, the Applicant will not advance to Step 3.
For the compliance analysis, the CDFI Fund will evaluate the compliance risk of each Application using information provided in the Application. Each Application will receive a Total Compliance Composite Score on a scale of one (1) to five (5), with one (1) being the highest rating. Applicants must receive a Total Compliance Composite Score of one (1), two (2), or three (3) to advance to Step 3. Applicants that receive an initial Total Compliance Composite Score of four (4) or five (5) will be re-evaluated and re-scored by CDFI Fund Staff. If the Total Compliance Composite Score remains four (4) or five (5) after CDFI Staff review, the Applicant will not advance to Step 3.
c. Step 3: Business Plan Review: Applicants that proceed to Step 3 will be evaluated on the soundness of each Applicant's comprehensive business plan. Two external non-CDFI Fund Reviewers will conduct the Step 3 evaluation. Reviewers will evaluate the Application sections listed in Table 13. All Applications will be reviewed in accordance with standard reviewer evaluation materials for the business plan review. Applications will be ranked based on Total Business Plan Scores, in descending order. In order to advance to Step 4, Applicants must receive a Total Business Plan Score that is either (1) equal to receiving a point score equivalent to a “Good” out of a ranking scale in descending order of Excellent, Good, Fair, Limited or Poor, in each section listed in Table 13 or (2) within the top 60 percent of the CORE applicant pool for CORE applicants or within the top 70 percent of the SECA
d. Step 4: Policy Objective Review: The CDFI Fund internal reviewers will evaluate each Application to determine its ability to meet policy objectives of the CDFI Fund authorizing statute. The policy objectives considered in this evaluation are listed in Table 14 below. The CDFI Fund also conducts a due diligence review for Applications that includes an analysis of programmatic risk factors including, but not limited to: history of performance in managing Federal awards (including timeliness of reporting and compliance); reports and findings from audits; and the Applicant's ability to effectively implement Federal requirements, which could impact the Total Policy Objective Review Score. Each Applicant will be evaluated in each of the categories, which will result in a Total Policy Objective Review Composite Score on a scale of one (1) to five (5), with one (1) being the highest score. Applicants are then grouped according to Total Policy Objective Review Scores.
e. Step 5: Award Amount Determination: The CDFI Fund determines an award amount for each Application based on the Step 4 Total Policy Objective Review Score, the Applicant's request amount, and on certain variables, including but not limited to, an Applicant's deployment track record, minimum award size, and funding availability. Award amounts may be reduced from the requested award amount as a result of this analysis. Lastly, the CDFI Fund may consider the geographic diversity of Applicants when making its funding decisions.
2.
The CDFI Fund conducts additional levels of due diligence for Applications that are in scoring contention for an HFFI–FA award. This due diligence includes an analysis of programmatic and financial risk factors including, but not limited to, financial stability, quality of management systems and ability to meet award management standards, history of performance in managing Federal awards (including timeliness of reporting and compliance), reports and findings from audits, and the Applicant's ability to effectively implement Federal requirements. Award amounts may be reduced from the requested award amount as a result of this analysis. The CDFI Fund may reduce awards sizes from requested amounts based on certain variables, including an Applicant's loan disbursement activity, total portfolio outstanding, and similar factors. Lastly, the CDFI Fund may consider the geographic diversity of Applicants when making its funding decisions.
3.
4.
5.
An Applicant that is a Certified CDFI will be evaluated on the demonstrated need for TA funding to build the CDFI's capacity, further the Applicant's strategic goals, and achieve impact within the Applicant's Target Market. An Applicant that is an Emerging CDFI or Certifiable CDFI will be evaluated on the Applicant's demonstrated capability and plan to achieve CDFI certification within three years, or if a prior awardee, the certification performance goal and measure stated in its prior Assistance Agreement. An Applicant that is an Emerging CDFI and Certifiable CDFI will also be evaluated on its demonstrated need for TA funding to build the CDFI's capacity and further its strategic goals.
The CDFI Fund will score each part of the TA Business Plan Review as indicated in Table 17.
Each TA Application will be evaluated by one internal CDFI Fund reviewer. Internal reviewers must complete the CDFI Fund's conflict of interest process. The CDFI Fund's application conflict of interest policy is located on the CDFI Fund's website. All Applications will be reviewed in accordance with CDFI Fund standard reviewer evaluation materials for the Business Plan Review. Applications will be ranked based on Total TA Business Plan Score, in descending order. In the case of tied scores that would prohibit the Application from progressing to the next level of review, Certified Applicants will be ranked first according to each Organization Overview score, and Emerging CDFI and Certifiable CDFI Applicants will be ranked first according to the total Section I score.
The CDFI Fund conducts additional levels of due diligence for Applications that are in scoring contention for an award. This due diligence includes an analysis of programmatic and financial risk factors including, but not limited to, financial stability, history of performance in managing Federal awards (including timeliness of reporting and compliance), reports and findings from audits, and the Applicant's ability to effectively implement Federal requirements. The CDFI Fund will also evaluate the Applicant's ability to meet certification criteria of being a legal entity and a non-government entity. Award amounts may be reduced as a result of this analysis in addition to consideration of the eligibility of an Applicant's funding request and similar factors. Lastly, the CDFI Fund may consider the geographic diversity of Applicants when making its funding decisions.
6.
7.
B.
C.
D.
A.
B.
1.
2.
The CDFI Fund will minimize the time between the Recipient incurring costs for eligible activities and award payment in accordance with the Uniform Requirements. The advanced payments for eligible activities will occur no more than one year in advance of the Recipient incurring costs for the eligible activities. Following the initial closing, there may be subsequent closings involving additional award payments. Any documentation in addition to the Assistant Agreement that is connected with such subsequent closings and payments shall be properly executed and timely delivered by the Recipient to the CDFI Fund.
3.
In addition, the CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to terminate and rescind the Assistance Agreement and the award made under this NOFA pending the criteria described in the following table:
1.
Each Recipient is responsible for the timely and complete submission of the Annual Reporting requirements. The CDFI Fund reserves the right to contact the Recipient and additional entities or signatories to the Assistance Agreement to request additional information and documentation. The CDFI Fund will use such information to monitor each Recipient's compliance with the requirements in the Assistance Agreement and to assess the impact of the CDFI Program. The CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to modify these reporting requirements, including increasing the scope and frequency of reporting, if it determines it to be appropriate and necessary; however, such reporting requirements will be modified only after notice to Recipients.
2.
The cost principles used by Recipients must be consistent with Federal cost principles and support the accumulation of costs as required by the principles, and must provide for adequate documentation to support costs charged to the CDFI Program award. In addition, the CDFI Fund will require Recipients to: Maintain effective internal controls; comply with applicable statutes, regulations, and the Assistance Agreement; evaluate and monitor compliance; take action when not in compliance; and safeguard personally identifiable information.
A. The CDFI Fund will respond to questions concerning this NOFA and the Application between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Savings Time, starting on the date that the NOFA is published through the date listed in Table 1 and Table 12. The CDFI Fund strongly recommends applicants submit questions to the CDFI Fund via an AMIS service request to the CDFI Program, Certification, Compliance Monitoring and Evaluation, or IT Help Desk. The CDFI Fund will post on its website responses to reoccurring questions received about this Application. Other information regarding the CDFI Fund and its programs may be obtained from the CDFI Fund's website at
B.
C.
D.
A.
B.
12 U.S.C. 4701, et seq; 12 CFR parts 1805 and 1815; 2 CFR part 200.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons and vessels that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons, and these vessels, are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202–622–2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202–622–2490; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202–622–2480; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the General Counsel: Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202–622–2410.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
A. On January 24, 2018, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons, and the following vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction, are blocked pursuant to the relevant sanctions authorities listed below. Dealings in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction in which a person identified as Government of North Korea has an interest are prohibited effective as of the date of that status, which may be earlier than the date of OFAC's determination.
1. KIM, Song (a.k.a. KIM, So'ng), Linjiang, China; DOB 11 Jan 1964; nationality Korea, North; Gender Male; Representative of the Korea Ryonbong General Corporation in Linjiang, China (individual) [DPRK2].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of Executive Order 13687 of January 2, 2015, “Imposing Additional Sanctions With Respect to North Korea” (E.O. 13687) for being an official of the Workers' Party of Korea.
2. RYANG, Tae Chol (a.k.a. RYANG, Tae-ch'o'l), Tumen, China; DOB 07 Jan 1969; nationality Korea, North; Gender Male; Representative of the Korea Ryonbong General Corporation in Tumen, China (individual) [DPRK2].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of E.O. 13687 for being an official of the Workers' Party of Korea.
3. PAK, Kwang Hun (a.k.a. BAK, Gwang Hun; a.k.a. PAK, Gwang Hun; a.k.a. PAK, Kwang-hun), Vladivostok, Russia; DOB 01 Jan 1970 to 31 Dec 1970; nationality Korea, North; Gender Male; Representative of Korea Ryonbong General Corporation in Vladivostok, Russia (individual) [DPRK2].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of E.O. 13687 for being an official of the Workers' Party of Korea.
4. RI, Myong Hun (a.k.a. RI, Myo'ng-hun), Korea, North; DOB 14 Mar 1969; Gender Male; Passport 381420089 expires 11 Oct 2016 (individual) [DPRK2].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii) of E.O. 13687 for being an official of the Government of North Korea.
5. HAN, Kwon U (a.k.a. HAN, Kon U; a.k.a. HAN, Ko'n-u; a.k.a. HAN, Kwo'n-u), Zhuhai, China; DOB 21 Aug 1962; Passport 745434880; Korea Ryonbong General Corporation Representative in Zhuhai, China (individual) [DPRK2].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of E.O. 13687 for being an official of the Workers' Party of Korea.
6. KIM, Kyong Hak (a.k.a. KIM, Kyo'ng-hak), Zhuhai, China; DOB 27 Nov 1973; nationality Korea, North; Passport 654231856; Korea Ryonbong General Corporation Representative in Zhuhai, China (individual) [DPRK2].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of E.O. 13687 for being an official of the Workers' Party of Korea.
7. KIM, Pyong Chan (a.k.a. KIM, Pyo'ng-ch'an), Korea, North; Zhuhai, China; DOB 09 Jun 1961; Workers' Party of Korea Official (individual) [DPRK2].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of E.O. 13687 for being an official of the Workers' Party of Korea.
8. KIM, Ho Kyu (a.k.a. KIM, Ho Gyu; a.k.a. KIM, Ho'-kyu; a.k.a. KIM, Ho-Kyu; a.k.a. PARK, Aleksei), Nakhodka, Russia; DOB 15 Sep 1970; nationality Korea, North; Gender Male; Korea Ryonbong General Corporation Official (individual) [DPRK2].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of E.O. 13687 for being an official of the Workers' Party of Korea.
9. PAK, Tong Sok (a.k.a. PAK, Tong-So'k), Abkhazia, Georgia; DOB 15 Apr 1965; nationality Korea, North; Passport 745120209 (Korea, North) expires 26 Feb 2020; Korea Ryonbong General Corporation Official (individual) [DPRK2].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of E.O. 13687 for being an official of the Workers' Party of Korea.
10. JONG, Man Bok (a.k.a. CHO'NG, Man-pok), Dandong, China; DOB 23 Dec 1958; nationality Korea, North; Gender Male; Korea Ryonbong General Corporation Representative in Dandong, China (individual) [DPRK2].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of E.O. 13687 for being an official of the Workers' Party of Korea.
11. KIM, Man Chun (a.k.a. KIM, Man-ch'un), No. 567 Xinshi Street, Linjiang City, China; DOB 25 May 1966; nationality Korea, North; Gender Male; Passport PS654320308; Korea Ryonbong General Corporation Representative in Linjiang, China (individual) [DPRK2].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of E.O. 13687 for being an official of the Workers' Party of Korea.
12. RI, Tok Jin (a.k.a. RI, To'k-chin), Ji'an, China; DOB 26 Jul 1957; nationality Korea, North; Korea Ryonbong General Corporation Representative in Ji'an, China (individual) [DPRK2].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of E.O. 13687 for being an official of the Workers' Party of Korea.
13. CHOE, Song Nam (a.k.a. CH'OE, So'ng-nam), Shenyang, China; DOB 07 Jan 1979; Passport 563320192 expires 09 Aug 2018; Daesong Bank Representative (individual) [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of Executive Order 13810 of September 20, 2017, “Imposing Additional Sanctions With Respect to North Korea” (E.O. 13810) for operating in the financial services industry in North Korea.
14. KIM, Chol (a.k.a. KIM, Ch'o'l), Dalian, China; DOB 27 Sep 1964; Korea United Development Bank representative (individual) [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13810 for operating in the financial services industry in North Korea.
15. Ko, Il Hwan (a.k.a. KO, Il-hwan), Shenyang, China; DOB 28 Aug 1967; nationality Korea, North; Gender Male; Passport 927220424 expires 12 Jun 2022; Korea Daesong Bank official (individual) [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13810 for operating in the financial services industry in North Korea.
16. PAEK, Jong Sam (a.k.a. PAEK, Chong-sam), Shenyang, China; DOB 17 Jan 1964; nationality Korea, North (individual) [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13810 for operating in the financial services industry in North Korea.
1. MINISTRY OF CRUDE OIL INDUSTRY (a.k.a. CRUDE OIL INDUSTRY MINISTRY; a.k.a. GENERAL BUREAU OF PETROLEUM INDUSTRY; a.k.a. MINISTRY OF CRUDE OIL), Pyongyang, Korea, North [DPRK3].
Identified as meeting the definition of the Government of North Korea as set forth in section 9(d) of Executive Order 13722 of March 15, 2016, “Blocking Property of the Government of North Korea and the Workers' Party of Korea, and Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to North Korea” (E.O. 13722).
2. HANA ELECTRONICS JVC (a.k.a. HANA ELECTRONIC JV COMPANY; a.k.a. HANA ELECTRONICS), PYONGYANG, Korea, North [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13810 for operating in the manufacturing industry in North Korea.
3. BEIJING CHENGXING TRADING CO. LTD. (Chinese Simplified: 5317; 4EAC; 5174; 8D38; 6613; 709; 9650; 516C; 53F8;), Room 2206 Floor 19, 602 Wangjing Yuan, Zhaoyang District, Beijing, China [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of E.O. 13810 for having engaged in at least one significant importation from or exportation to North Korea of any goods, services, or technology.
4. DANDONG JINXIANG TRADE CO., LTD. (a.k.a. CHINA DANDONG KUMSANG TRADE COMPANY, LIMITED; a.k.a. DANDONG METAL COMPANY; a.k.a. JINXIANG TRADING COMPANY), Room 303, Unit 2, Building Number 3, Number 99 Binjiang Lu (Road), Zhenxing District, Dandong, China; Room 303–01, Number 99–3, Binjiang Zhong Lu (Road), Dandong, China; Number 5, Tenth Street, Zhenxing District, Dandong, Liaoning, China; 245–11, Number 1 Wanlian Road, Shenhe District, Shenyang, China; Room 1101, No B, Jiadi Building, Business and Tourist, China; Room 303, Unit 2, 3 Haolou, Building 99 Binjiang Middle Rd., Zhenxing, Dandong,
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of E.O. 13810 for having engaged in at least one significant importation from or exportation to North Korea of any goods, services, or technology.
5. CK INTERNATIONAL LTD, c/o Korea Uljibong Shipping Co., Jongbaek 1-dong, Rakrang-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Room 9, Unit A, 3rd Floor, Cheong Sun Tower, 116–118, Wing Lok Street, Sheung Wan, Hong Kong; Company Number IMO 5980332 [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13810 for operating in the transportation industry in North Korea.
6. GOORYONG SHIPPING CO LTD (f.k.a. GOORYONG SHIPPING BANGKOK), Changgyong 2-dong, Sosong-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Warranton Ville 458Soi 5Pattanakan Soi 44Suanluang, Bangkok 10250, Thailand; Company Number IMO 5055293 [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13810 for operating in the transportation industry in North Korea.
7. HWASONG SHIPPING CO LTD, Changgyong dong, Sosong-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Company Number IMO 543400 [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13810 for operating in the transportation industry in North Korea.
8. KOREA KUMUNSAN SHIPPING CO, Pongnam-dong, Pyongchon-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Company Number IMO 5110478 [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13810 for operating in the transportation industry in North Korea.
9. KOREA MARINE & INDUSTRIAL TRDG (a.k.a. KOREA MARINE AND INDUSTRIAL TRDG), Changgyong 2-dong, Sosong-guyok, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Company Number IMO 5928635 [DPRK4].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13810 for operating in the transportation industry in North Korea.
1. EVER GLORY Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8909915 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA MARINE & INDUSTRIAL TRDG).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which KOREA MARINE & INDUSTRIAL TRDG, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
2. GOO RYONG Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8201870 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: GOORYONG SHIPPING CO LTD).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which GOORYONG SHIPPING CO LTD, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
3. HWA SONG Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8217685 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: HWASONG SHIPPING CO LTD).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which HWASONG SHIPPING CO LTD, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
4. KUM UN SAN Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8720436 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA KUMUNSAN SHIPPING CO).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which KOREA KUMUNSAN SHIPPING CO, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
5. UL JI BONG 6 Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9114555 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: CK INTERNATIONAL).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which CK INTERNATIONAL, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
6. UN RYUL Democratic People's Republic of Korea flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8514409 (vessel) [DPRK4] (Linked To: KOREA MARINE & INDUSTRIAL TRDG).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13810 as property in which KOREA MARINE & INDUSTRIAL TRDG, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13810, has an interest.
B. On January 24, 2018, OFAC published the following revised identifier information for one individual and one entity on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13722:
1. HUISH, Irina Igorevna (a.k.a. BURLOVA, Irina), Russia; South Africa; DOB 18 Jan 1973; Gender Female (individual) [DPRK3] (Linked To: VELMUR MANAGEMENT PTE LTD).
2. HANA BANKING CORPORATION LTD (a.k.a. BRILLIANCE BANKING CORPORATION, LTD.; a.k.a. GORGEOUS BANK OF NORTH KOREA; a.k.a. HUALI BANK (Chinese Simplified: 671D; 9C9C; 534E; 4E3D; 94F6; 884C;); a.k.a. HWARYO BANK (Korean:D654; B824;D589;)), Haebangsan Hotel, Jungsong-Dong, Sungri Street, Central District, Pyongyang, Korea, North; Dandong, China; SWIFT/BIC BRBKKPP1XXX [DPRK3].
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Request for information; correction.
On January 5, 2018, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published a Notice, Request for Information in the
Comments in response to this request for information must be received by VA on or before February 5, 2018.
Written comments may be submitted through
Margaret Kabat, National Director, Caregiver Support Program, 10P4C, Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, 202–461–6780 (this is not a toll free number).
In the
VA believes that 30 days is sufficient to provide comments, as the individuals, groups, and entities interested in this program likely have information and opinions readily available or can quickly compile and submit such information.
Notice.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), National Cemetery Administration (NCA), is seeking nominations of qualified candidates to be considered for appointment as a member of the Advisory Committee on Cemeteries and Memorials (herein-after in this section referred to as “the Committee”). The Committee was established to advise the Secretary of VA with respect to the administration of VA national cemeteries, soldiers' lots and plots, which are the responsibility of the Secretary, the erection of appropriate memorials and the adequacy of Federal burial benefits.
Nominations of qualified candidates are being sought to fill upcoming vacancies on the Committee. Nominations for membership on the Committee must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on February 9, 2018.
All nominations should be mailed to National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, (40A1), Washington, DC 20420, or faxed to (202) 273–6709.
Ms. Christine Hamilton, National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, (40A1), Washington, DC 20420, telephone (202) 461–5681. A copy of Committee charter and list of the current membership can be obtained by contacting Ms. Hamilton or by accessing the website managed by NCA at:
The Advisory Committee on Cemeteries and Memorials (ACCM) was established to advise the Secretary of VA with respect to the administration of VA national cemeteries, soldiers' lots and plots, which are the responsibility of the Secretary, the erection of appropriate memorials and the adequacy of Federal burial benefits. The Committee responsibilities include:
(1) Advising the Secretary on VA's administration of burial benefits and the selection of cemetery sites, the erection of appropriate memorials, and the adequacy of Federal burial benefits;
(2) Providing to the Secretary and Congress periodic reports outlining recommendations, concerns, and observations on VA's delivery of these benefits and services to Veterans;
(3) Meeting with VA officials, Veteran Service Organizations, and other stakeholders to assess the Department's efforts in providing burial benefits and outreach on these benefits to Veterans and their dependents;
(4) Undertaking assignments to conduct research and assess existing burial and memorial programs; to examine potential revisions or expansion of burial and memorial programs and services; and to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary based on this research.
The members of the Committee are appointed by the Secretary of Veteran Affairs from the general public, including but not limited to:
(1) Veterans or other individuals who are recognized authorities in fields pertinent to the needs of Veterans;
(2) Veterans who have experience in a military theater of operations;
(3) Recently separated service members;
(4) Officials from Government, non-Government organizations (NGOs) and industry partners in the provision of memorial benefits and services, and outreach information to VA beneficiaries.
The Secretary shall determine the number, terms of service, and pay and allowances of members of the Committee appointed by the Secretary, except that a term of service of any such member may not exceed three years. The Secretary may reappoint any such member for additional terms of service.
To the extent possible, the Secretary seeks members who have diverse professional and personal qualifications, including but not limited to prior military experience and military deployments, experience working with Veterans, and experience in large and complex organizations, and subject matter expertise in the areas described above. We ask that nominations include information of this type so that VA can ensure diverse Committee membership.
(1) A letter of nomination that clearly states the name and affiliation of the nominee, the basis for the nomination (
(2) The nominee's contact information, including name, mailing address, telephone numbers, and email address;
(3) The nominee's curriculum vitae; and
(4) A summary of the nominee's experience and qualifications relative to the membership considerations described above.
Individuals selected for appointment to the Committee shall be invited to serve a two-year term. Committee members will receive a stipend for attending Committee meetings, including per diem and reimbursement for travel expenses incurred.
The Department makes every effort to ensure that the membership of VA federal advisory committees is diverse in terms of points of view represented and the committee's capabilities. Appointments to this Committee shall be made without discrimination because of a person's race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identify, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information. Nominations must state that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the Committee and appears to have no conflict of interest that would preclude membership. An
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before April 2, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor at (202) 461–5870.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice of funding availability.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is announcing the availability of funds for the Specially Adapted Housing Assistive Technology (SAHAT) Grant Program for fiscal year (FY) 2018. The objective of the grant is to encourage the development of new assistive technologies for specially adapted housing. This notice is intended to provide applicants with the information necessary to apply for the SAHAT Grant Program. Registration will be available at
Applications for the SAHAT Grant Program must be submitted via
Bryant Lacey (Program Manager), Specially Adapted Housing Program (262), Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–8955. (This is not a toll-free number.)
Pursuant to the Veterans' Benefits Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–275, 124 Stat. 2864), the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Secretary), through the Loan Guaranty Service (LGY) of the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), is authorized to provide grants of financial assistance to develop new assistive technology. The objective of the SAHAT Grant Program is to encourage the development of new assistive technologies for adapted housing.
LGY currently administers the Specially Adapted Housing (SAH) Program. Through this program, LGY provides funds to eligible veterans and servicemembers with certain service-connected disabilities to help purchase or construct an adapted home, or modify an existing home, to allow them to live more independently. Please see 38 U.S.C. 2101(a)(2)(B) and (C) and 38 U.S.C. 2101(b)(2) for a list of qualifying service-connected disabilities. Currently, most SAH adaptations involve structural modifications such as ramps, wider hallways and doorways, and roll-in showers and other accessible bathroom features, etc. For more information about the SAH Program, please visit:
VA acknowledges there are many emerging technologies and improvements in building materials that could improve home adaptions or otherwise enhance a veteran's or servicemember's ability to live independently. Therefore, in 38 CFR 36.4412(b)(2), VA has defined “new assistive technology” as an advancement that the Secretary determines could aid or enhance the ability of an eligible individual, as defined in 38 CFR 36.4401, to live in an adapted home. SAHAT funding will support the creation of assistive technologies that veterans and servicemembers can use in order to facilitate optimal independence in their homes.
Public Law 111–275, the Veterans' Benefits Act of 2010 (the Act), was enacted on October 13, 2010. Section 203 of the Act amended chapter 21, title 38, U.S.C., to establish the SAHAT Grant Program. The Act authorized VA to provide grants of up to $200,000 per fiscal year, through September 30, 2016, to a “person or entity” for the development of specially adapted housing assistive technologies. The Act limited the aggregate amount of such grants VA may award in any fiscal year to $1 million.
On September 29, 2017, Public Law 115–62, the Department of Veterans Affairs Expiring Authorities Act of 2017 was enacted. Section 408 of title IV extended the authority for VA to provide grants in the manner listed above, through September 30, 2018. See 38 U.S.C. 2108 and 38 CFR 36.4412.
Grantees will be expected to leverage grant funds to develop new assistive technologies for specially adapted housing. In 38 CFR 36.4412(f)(2), VA set out the scoring criteria and the maximum points allowed for each criterion. As explained in the preambles to both the proposed and final rules, while the scoring framework is set out in the regulation text, each notice will address the scoring priorities for that particular grant cycle. 79 FR 53146, 53148, Sept. 8, 2014; 80 FR 55763, 55764, Sept. 17, 2014. For FY 2018, the Secretary has established innovation and unmet needs, as described in scoring criteria 1 and 2 contained in Section V(A) of this notice, as top priorities. Additional information regarding how these priorities will be scored is contained in Section V(A) of this notice.
Definitions of terms used in the SAHAT Grant Program are found at 38 CFR 36.4412(b).
Pursuant to 38 CFR 36.4412(i), each VA employee appointed to or lawfully fulfilling any of the following positions is delegated authority, within the limitations and conditions prescribed by law, to exercise the powers and functions of the Secretary with respect to the SAHAT Grant Program authorized by 38 U.S.C. 2108:
The aggregate amount of assistance VA may award in any fiscal year is limited to $1 million. This funding will be provided as an assistance agreement in the form of grants. The number of assistance agreements VA will fund as a result of this notice will be based on the quality of the technology grant applications received and the availability of funding. However, the maximum amount of assistance a technology grant applicant may receive in any fiscal year is limited to $200,000.
Funding for these projects is not guaranteed and is subject to the availability of funds and the evaluation of technology grant applications based on the criteria in this announcement. In appropriate circumstances, VA reserves the right to partially fund technology grant applications by funding discrete portions or phases of proposed projects that relate to adapted housing. Award of funding through this competition is not a guarantee of future funding. The SAHAT Grant Program is administered annually and does not guarantee subsequent awards. Renewal grants to provide new assistive technology will not be considered under this announcement.
The anticipated start date of grants funded under this announcement is April 2, 2018. Grant projects must be closed out by September 30, 2019.
As authorized by 38 U.S.C. 2108, the Secretary may provide a grant to a “person or entity” for the development of specially adapted housing assistive technologies. In order to foster competition and best serve the needs of
There is no cost sharing, matching, or cost participation for the SAHAT Grant Program. However, leveraged resources will be considered as an evaluation criterion during the application review process (see scoring criterion 6 in Section V of this announcement). Leveraged resources are not included in the approved budget (outlined in the Standard Form 424A—BUDGET INFORMATION—Non-Construction Programs) for the project and need not be an eligible and allowable cost under the grant. Any form of proposed leveraging that is evaluated under Section V scoring criteria must be included in the application, and the application must describe how the technology grant applicant will obtain the leveraged resources and what role VA funding will play in the overall project.
As stated in Section III(A), VA is placing no restrictions on the types of eligible entities. However, all technology grant applicants and applications must meet the threshold criteria set forth below. Failure to meet any of the following threshold criteria in the application will result in the automatic disqualification for funding consideration. Ineligible participants will be notified within 30 days of the finding of disqualification for award consideration based on the following threshold criteria:
1. Projects funded under this notice must involve new assistive technologies that the Secretary determines could aid or enhance the ability of a veteran or servicemember to live in an adapted home.
2. Projects funded under this notice must not be used for the completion of work which was to have been completed under a prior grant.
3. Applications in which the technology grant applicant is requesting assistance funds in excess of $200,000 will not be reviewed.
4. Applications that do not comply with the application and submission information requirements provided in Section IV of this notice will be rejected.
5. Applications submitted via mail, email, or facsimile will not be reviewed.
6. Applications must be received through
7. Technology grant applicants that have an outstanding obligation to the Federal Government that is in arrears or have an overdue or unsatisfactory response to an audit will be deemed ineligible.
8. Technology grant applicants in default by failing to meet the requirements for any previous Federal assistance will be deemed ineligible.
9. Applications submitted by entities deemed ineligible will not be reviewed.
10. Applications with project dates that extend past June 30, 2019 (this period does not include the 90 days closeout period) will not be reviewed.
All technology grant recipients, including individuals and entities formed as for-profit entities, will be subject to the rules on Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, as found at 2 CFR part 200. See 2 CFR 200.101(a). Where the Secretary determines that 2 CFR part 200 is not applicable or where the Secretary determines that additional requirements are necessary due to the uniqueness of a situation, the Secretary will apply the same standard applicable to exceptions under 2 CFR 200.102.
Technology grant applicants may download the application package from www.
The SAHAT Grant Program application package provided at
1.
2.
3.
4.
a. A project description, including the goals and objectives of the project, what the project is expected to achieve, and how the project will benefit veterans and servicemembers.
b. An estimated schedule including the length of time (not to extend past June 30, 2019) needed to accomplish tasks and objectives for the project.
c. A description of what the project proposes to demonstrate and how this new technology will aid or enhance the ability of veterans and servicemembers to live in an adapted home. The following link has additional information regarding adapted homes:
d. Each technology grant applicant is responsible for ensuring that the application addresses each of the scoring criteria listed in Section V(A) of this notice.
Each technology grant applicant, unless the applicant is an individual or Federal awarding agency that is excepted from these requirements under 2 CFR 25.110(b) or (c), or has an exception approved by VA under 2 CFR 25.110(d), is required to:
1. Be registered in SAM prior to submitting an application;
2. Provide a valid DUNS number in the application; and
3. Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which the technology grant applicant has an active Federal award or an application under consideration by VA.
VA will not make an award to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all applicable DUNS and SAM requirements, and if the applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time VA is ready to make an award, VA will determine the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and will use this determination as a basis for making the award to another applicant.
Applications for the SAHAT Grant Program must be submitted via
Applications submitted via
It is the responsibility of grant applicants to ensure a complete application is submitted via
It is recommended that confidential business information (CBI) not be included in the application. However, if CBI is included in an application, applicants should clearly indicate which portion(s) of their application they are claiming as CBI. See 2 CFR 200.333–200.337 (addressing access to a non-Federal entity's records pertinent to a Federal award).
This section is not applicable to the SAHAT Grant Program.
The SAHAT Grant Program does not allow reimbursement of pre-award costs.
Each eligible proposal (based on the Section III threshold eligibility review) will be evaluated according to the criteria established by the Secretary and provided below in Section A.
The Secretary will score technology grant applications based on the scoring criteria listed below. As indicated in Section I of this notice, the Secretary is placing the greatest emphasis on criteria 1 and 2. The establishment of priorities does not establish new scoring criteria but is designed to assist technology grant applicants in understanding how scores will be weighted. A technology grant application must receive a minimum aggregate score of 70. Instructions for completion of the scoring criteria are listed on VA Form 26–0967a. This form is included in the application package materials on
1. A description of how the new assistive technology is innovative (up to 50 points);
2. An explanation of how the new assistive technology will meet a specific, unmet need among eligible individuals (up to 50 points);
3. An explanation of how the new assistive technology is specifically designed to promote the ability of eligible individuals to live more independently (up to 30 points);
4. A description of the new assistive technology's concept, size, and scope (up to 30 points);
5. An implementation plan with major milestones for bringing the new assistive technology into production and to the market. Such milestones must be meaningful and achievable within a specific timeframe (up to 30 points); and
6. An explanation of what uniquely positions the technology grant applicant in the marketplace. This can include a focus on characteristics such as the economic reliability of the technology grant applicant, the technology grant applicant's status as a minority or veteran-owned business, or other characteristics that the technology grant applicant wants to include to show how it will help protect the interests of, or further the mission of, VA and the program (up to 20 points).
Eligible applications will be evaluated by a five-person review panel comprised of VA employees. The review panel will score applications using the scoring criteria provided in Section V(A), with the greatest emphasis being placed on scoring criteria 1 and 2. The review panel will then rank those applications that receive a minimum aggregate score of 70 in order from highest to lowest. The delegated official will select the highest ranked application(s) based on, and subject to, the availability of funds.
Although subject to change, the SAHAT Grant Program Office expects to announce grant recipients by April 1, 2018. Prior to executing any funding agreement, VA will contact successful applicants, make known the amount of proposed funding, and verify the applicant's desire to receive the funding. Any communication between the SAHAT Grant Program Office and successful applicants prior to the issuance of an award notice is not authorization to begin project activities. Once VA verifies that the grant applicant is still seeking funding, VA will issue a signed and dated award notice. The award notice will be sent by U.S. Mail to the organization listed on the SF–424.
All applicants will be notified by letter, sent by U.S. Mail to the address listed on the SF–424.
This section is not applicable to the SAHAT Grant Program.
VA places great emphasis on the responsibility and accountability of grantees. Grantees must agree to cooperate with any Federal evaluation of the program and provide the following:
1.
2.
3.
For additional general information about this announcement contact the program official: Bryant Lacey (Program Manager), Specially Adapted Housing Program,
Mailed correspondence, which should not include application material, should be sent to: Loan Guaranty Service, VA Central Office, Attn: Bryant Lacey (262), 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420.
All correspondence with VA concerning this announcement should reference the funding opportunity title and funding opportunity number listed at the top of this solicitation. Once the announcement deadline has passed, VA staff may not discuss this competition with applicants until the application review process has been completed.
Section 2108 authorizes VA to provide grants for the development of
The SAHAT Grant is not a veterans' benefit. As such, the decisions of the Secretary are final and not subject to the same appeal rights as decisions related to veterans' benefits. The Secretary does not have a duty to assist technology grant applicants in obtaining a grant.
Grantees will receive payments electronically through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Payment Management System.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Gina S. Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff, approved this document on January 23, 2018, for publication.
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to amend the Federal meat inspection regulations to establish a new inspection system for market hog slaughter establishments that has been demonstrated to provide public health protection at least equivalent to the existing inspection system. Market hog slaughter establishments that do not choose to operate under the new swine inspection system may continue to operate under their existing inspection system. The Agency is also proposing several changes to the regulations that would affect all establishments that slaughter any swine, regardless of the inspection system under which they operate or the age, size, or class of swine. These proposed changes would allow all swine slaughter establishments to develop sampling plans that are more tailored to their specific operations, and thus be more effective in monitoring their specific process control. These proposed changes also would ensure that before the start of slaughter operations, food-contact surfaces are sanitary and free of enteric pathogens.
Comments must be received on or before April 2, 2018.
FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this rule. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Roberta Wagner, Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development; Telephone: (202) 205–0495.
FSIS began experimenting with new approaches to slaughter inspection based on Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Systems (HACCP) principles shortly after publishing the Pathogen Reduction/HACCP rule in 1996. In 1997, the Agency developed the HACCP-Based Inspection Models Project (HIMP) study to determine whether applying new Government slaughter inspection procedures, along with new plant responsibilities, could promote innovation and provide at least the same food safety and consumer protection. FSIS initiated the HIMP study in 20 young chicken, five young turkey, and five market hog establishments on a waiver basis.
In 2014, the Agency amended the poultry products inspection regulations to establish a new optional inspection system for young chicken and all turkey slaughter establishments informed by the Agency's experiences under HIMP (79 FR 49566, August 21, 2014). The New Poultry Inspection System (NPIS) was designed to facilitate pathogen reduction in poultry products, improve the effectiveness of poultry slaughter inspection, make better use of the Agency's resources, and remove unnecessary regulatory obstacles to innovation. The risk model employed to assess the potential impact of the NPIS modeled scenarios involving an increase in targeted inspection activities (specifically unscheduled offline inspection activities). The results of this model, constructed on the assumption that the number of offline procedures performed in poultry establishments under the NPIS would increase proportionally to the number observed in HIMP establishments, suggested that implementing the NPIS would likely result in public health benefits, in the form of fewer poultry-associated foodborne
In addition to establishing the NPIS for young chickens and turkeys, FSIS also amended the poultry products inspection regulations that apply to all establishments that slaughter poultry other than ratites. The new requirements ensure that all poultry slaughter establishments implement appropriate measures in their HACCP plans, sanitation standard operating procedures (sanitation SOPs), or other prerequisite programs (hereafter referred to as their “HACCP systems”) to prevent contamination of carcasses and parts by enteric pathogens and visible fecal material throughout the entire slaughter operation, and ensure that both FSIS and establishments have the documentation they need to verify the effectiveness of these measures on an ongoing basis.
FSIS is now proposing to amend the Federal meat inspection regulations to establish a new optional inspection system for market hog slaughter establishments, the New Swine Slaughter Inspection System (NSIS), informed by the Agency's experiences under HIMP. FSIS is proposing this new inspection system to facilitate pathogen reduction in pork products; improve compliance with the HMSA; improve the effectiveness of market hog slaughter inspection; make better use of the Agency's resources; and remove unnecessary regulatory obstacles to innovation by revoking maximum line speeds and allowing establishments flexibility to reconfigure evisceration lines. If establishment personnel sorted and removed unfit animals before ante-mortem inspection and trimmed and identified defects on carcasses and parts before post-mortem inspection by FSIS inspectors, FSIS inspectors would be presented with healthier animals and carcasses that have fewer defects to inspect, which would allow inspectors to conduct a more efficient and effective inspection of each animal and each
Key elements of the proposed NSIS include: (1) Requiring establishment personnel to sort and remove unfit animals before ante-mortem inspection by FSIS and to trim and identify defects on carcasses and parts before post-mortem inspection by FSIS; (2) requiring establishment personnel to identify animals or carcasses that they have sorted and removed for disposal before FSIS inspection with a unique tag, tattoo, or similar device and immediately denature all major portions of the carcass on-site, and maintain records to document the total number of animals and carcasses sorted and removed per day; (3) requiring establishment personnel to immediately notify FSIS inspectors if they suspect an animal or carcass with a reportable or foreign animal disease (
Under the proposed rule, market hog slaughter establishments that do not choose to operate under the NSIS may continue to operate under their existing inspection system (hereafter referred to as “traditional inspection”). As mentioned above, NSIS provides public health protection at least equivalent to traditional inspection. FSIS recognizes that some establishments may not be prepared to make the investment in facilities and labor needed to convert to NSIS. In addition, many small, very low volume establishments slaughter more than one type of livestock species and the facilities updates need to convert to the proposed NSIS may not accommodate the slaughter of livestock other than market hogs. Therefore, FSIS is proposing to give establishments the flexibility to operate under the system that is best suited to their operations.
FSIS is also proposing several changes that would affect all establishments that slaughter swine, regardless of the inspection system under which they operate. 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.
FSIS is proposing to prescribe a minimum frequency with which establishments would be required to collect two samples, one at pre-evisceration and one at post-chill (
Under the proposed rule, establishments, except for very small and very low volume establishments, would be required to collect pre-evisceration and post chill samples at a frequency of once per 1,000 carcasses. Very small and very low volume establishments would be required to collect at least one sample during each week of operation each year. If, after consecutively collecting 13 weekly samples, very small and very low volume establishments can demonstrate that they are effectively maintaining process control, they can modify their sampling plans to collect samples less frequently. FSIS is proposing to allow very small and very low volume establishments to collect and analyze samples for microbial organisms at the post-chill point in the process only because these establishments typically are less automated and run at slower line speeds than larger establishments. The lower level of automation and the slower line speeds require less complicated measures for maintaining and monitoring process control on an ongoing basis. These proposed frequencies reflect the frequencies prescribed under the existing regulations for generic
FSIS is proposing to allow establishments to substitute alternative sampling locations if they are able to
Finally, 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. The pre-operational environment comprises food contact surfaces, reuse water, and equipment, including knives, in edible food production departments before slaughter operations begin. These procedures would need to include sampling and analysis of food-contact surfaces in the pre-operational environment for microbial organisms to ensure that the surfaces are sanitary and free of enteric pathogens. The sampling frequency would need to be adequate to monitor the establishment's ability to maintain sanitary conditions in the pre-operational environment. Please see the draft compliance guide for additional information about implementation of this provision. FSIS is proposing this requirement as a direct result of a recent outbreak of foodborne illness associated with a hog slaughter establishment where food contact surfaces were found to be contaminated with the outbreak strain. FSIS is requesting comments on this proposed sampling requirement and the extent to which interventions in the pre-operational environment are needed to ensure food safety.
In Table 1 below, FSIS presents the estimated costs and benefits of the proposed rule. Later portions of the regulatory impact analysis section contain explanation of the assumptions, alternative adoption scenarios, and a discussion of the uncertainty surrounding the net benefits associated with how much of the industry would choose to adopt NSIS.
FSIS inspects and regulates the production of meat and meat food products prepared for distribution in commerce under the authority of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601
The FMIA also requires inspectors to conduct a post-mortem examination and inspection, and any necessary reinspection, of carcasses and parts of amenable species prepared for human food (21 U.S.C. 604). The FMIA requires that all carcasses and parts found to be adulterated be condemned (21 U.S.C. 604). Under the FMIA, a meat or meat food product is adulterated, among other circumstances, if it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance that may render it injurious to health; it is unhealthful, unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human consumption; it was prepared, packaged, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health; or if damage or inferiority has been concealed in any manner (21 U.S.C. 601(m)(1), (3), (4), and (8)). Finally, 21 U.S.C. 621 provides that the Secretary shall make such rules and regulations as are necessary for the efficient execution of the provisions of the FMIA. FSIS regulations and inspection programs are designed to verify that livestock are handled and slaughtered humanely, and that meat and meat food products are
Under the existing regulations for traditional inspection, FSIS ante-mortem inspectors examine all market hogs for visible signs of condemnable diseases or conditions while they are at rest and in motion (see 9 CFR part 309). FSIS ante-mortem inspectors direct establishment personnel to set apart animals showing signs of condemnable diseases or conditions into separate “U.S. Suspect” pens for further examination by the FSIS Public Health Veterinarian (PHV). The FSIS PHV determines whether the animals shall be identified as “U.S. Condemned” and disposed of in accordance with 9 CFR 309.13 (9 CFR 309.2).
Most establishments under traditional inspection that slaughter only market hogs voluntarily segregate animals that show signs of diseases or conditions from healthy animals before the Agency performs ante-mortem inspection (see FSIS Directive 6100.1,
During post-mortem inspection at all market hog slaughter establishments, FSIS online inspectors inspect the head, viscera, and carcass of each animal for localized defects and direct establishment employees to remove the defects through trimming (9 CFR 310.1(b)(3)). FSIS online inspectors perform manual incisions, palpations, and other organoleptic inspections (
Under the existing regulations for traditional inspection, establishments conduct no post-mortem carcass sorting to identify which carcasses and parts appear eligible to bear the mark of inspection, which carcasses and parts contain removable defects correctable through trimming, and which carcasses and parts should be submitted to FSIS for condemnation because of generalized diseases or conditions. These sorting functions are conducted by establishment personnel under HIMP. Rather, the existing regulations for traditional inspection require establishments to assign competent assistants to take such actions as directed by FSIS online inspectors after the inspectors have conducted the initial sorting activities (see 9 CFR 307.2(g)). Therefore, under the existing regulations for traditional inspection, establishments rely on FSIS online inspectors to effectively control and direct their processing. Moreover, because FSIS online inspectors are responsible for identifying unacceptable carcasses and parts, it takes online inspectors more time to conduct a carcass-by-carcass inspection than would be necessary if establishments sorted carcasses and parts, trimmed dressing defects and contamination that do not impact the FSIS inspectors' ability to assess the fitness of the carcass or part, and identified pathology defects, before the carcasses and parts were inspected.
More FSIS resources also could be devoted to offline inspection activities if initial sorting and tagging functions were performed by establishment personnel. Under the existing regulations, only FSIS inspectors may direct the application and removal of “U.S. Condemned” tags from animals and carcasses condemned by FSIS inspectors on ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection (9 CFR 309.13 and 310.5). The tag must remain on the carcass until it goes into the tank, or the carcass is otherwise disposed of in accordance with 9 CFR part 314. Establishments are required to denature condemned carcasses and parts if they do not have tanking facilities and the carcasses and parts are to be rendered or otherwise disposed of off-site (see 9 CFR 314.3). FSIS inspectors enter the number on each “U.S. Condemned” tag into the Public Health Information System (PHIS). Under the existing regulations, most “U.S. Condemned” tags are applied during ante-mortem inspection to animals that arrive dead. Because FSIS inspectors are responsible for removing all of the “U.S. Condemned” tags and documenting each “U.S. Condemned” tag number into PHIS, it takes inspectors more time to complete ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections than it would if establishments sorted and removed these animals before FSIS inspection and maintained records that could be verified by FSIS, as appropriate, and reported their daily totals to FSIS inspectors.
In addition to the post-mortem inspection activities conducted by online inspectors, offline inspectors conduct additional food safety related activities such as verifying that establishments' processing meets their HACCP critical limits and verifying whether sanitation SOPs are effective.
Modernization of market hog slaughter inspection is necessary because traditional inspection was developed before FSIS issued its HACCP regulations, and before the Agency began targeting its resources to address public health risks associated with foodborne pathogens. Traditional inspection obscures the proper roles of industry and inspection personnel by assigning to FSIS inspectors responsibility for sorting acceptable animals from unacceptable animals, finding carcass defects, identifying production control problems for the establishment, and verifying corrective actions in addition to determining whether the carcasses meet regulatory requirements. Additionally, traditional inspection requires FSIS to allocate significant inspection personnel resources towards online inspection activities in large and high volume market hog establishments to detect quality defects and conditions that present minimal food safety risks, thus limiting the resources available for offline inspection activities such as verifying the effectiveness of HACCP plans and sanitation SOPs. FSIS has concluded, based on the Agency's analysis of the market hog HIMP pilot (discussed in more detail below), conducting more offline activities will be more effective in ensuring food safety and humane handling verification tasks.
Traditional inspection requires inspectors to conduct time-intensive ante-mortem and post-mortem sorting activities. This necessitates FSIS to allocate significant personnel resources to conduct activities that are more appropriately the responsibility of the establishment. As a result, traditional inspection limits line speeds, even if establishments can demonstrate that they are able to produce safe, unadulterated, wholesome products at more efficient rates. It also limits large and high volume market hog slaughter establishments' incentive to improve their processing methods and to develop more efficient slaughter and dressing technologies.
For example, under traditional inspection, the maximum line speed authorized for slaughter lines with one or two inspectors is partially based upon the distance walked (in feet) by the inspector between work stations to conduct the sorting activities mentioned above (see 9 CFR 310.1(b)(3)). For slaughter lines with three or more inspectors, line speeds may also depend on whether FSIS online inspectors observe the back of the carcasses by looking in a mirror or whether they must turn the carcass to observe the back of the carcass (see 9 CFR 310.1(b)(3)). The maximum line speed under the existing regulations for market hogs is 1,106 head per hour (hph) with seven online inspectors. Establishments determine their line speeds based on their equipment, size and condition of the animals, and their ability to maintain process control when operating at a given line speed.
Additionally, traditional inspection restricts establishments' ability to reconfigure and consolidate lines if they determine that they need more space to conduct other activities in their facilities. For example, establishments slaughtering 1,025 market hogs per hour must configure their evisceration lines to accommodate three online head inspectors, three online viscera inspectors, and one online carcass inspector. The regulations require that establishments provide an inspection station consisting of five feet of unobstructed line space for each head or carcass inspector and, for viscera table kills, eight feet for each viscera inspector on the inspector's side of the table (9 CFR 307.2 (m)(1)). As a result, the current regulations for traditional inspection prevent large and high volume market hog slaughter establishments from consolidating inspection stations or otherwise reconfiguring their evisceration lines in order to make room for more innovative, automated equipment such as head dropping equipment, bung equipment (which separates digestive and urinary organs from pelvic attachments),
Additionally, traditional inspection was developed when visually detectable animal diseases such as pneumonias, erysipelas, hog cholera, cystercercosis, parasites, and arthritis were more prevalent and considered to be more of a concern than they are today. The line speed limits prescribed under traditional inspection reflect the Agency's previous focus on the detection of visible defects and animal diseases and do not give establishments the flexibility to address these conditions before presenting the carcasses and parts to FSIS inspectors.
Traditional inspection focuses substantial FSIS resources on detecting visible trim and dressing defects that are not directly related to food safety, particularly in light of what is now known about the role microbial contamination plays in causing foodborne human illness. The traditional inspection model needs to be updated in light of the significant advances that have been made in the control or eradication of many animal diseases that were more prevalent and were considered to present a greater concern when the existing inspection systems were designed, particularly in generally healthy classes of animals such as market hogs.
Moreover, the analysis in FSIS's “Assessment of the Potential Change in Human Health Risk Associated with Modernizing Inspection of Market Hog Slaughter Establishments” (hereafter referred to as the market hog risk assessment) conducted by FSIS suggests a statistically significant correlation between increased scheduled and unscheduled offline inspection procedures and a reduction in the prevalence of
The existing regulations require that official swine slaughter establishments conduct regular testing for generic
In 2014, FSIS rescinded the regulations that required that poultry establishments test carcasses for generic
The Agency is aware that most swine slaughter establishments currently conduct additional sampling for micro-organisms other than generic
In addition to generic
Under the regulations, an establishment's failure to take the corrective actions necessary to comply with the
From August 2010 to August 2011, FSIS conducted a third market hog baseline survey to estimate the national prevalence of
Therefore, FSIS is proposing to eliminate the pathogen performance standards for market hogs in 9 CFR 310.25(b) because verifying the codified standards was not a good use of Agency resources and the standards have not been used since 2011. Instead, FSIS has decided to focus on its resources on sampling raw pork parts for pathogens of public health concern, as well as for indicator organisms.
FSIS is currently addressing
Moreover, FSIS is currently conducting exploratory sampling of raw pork products for pathogens of public health concern, as well as for indicator organisms (80 FR 12618). A summary of the Phase I positive sampling results collected from May 2015 to November 2015 are as follows: 16.7 percent
The regulations in 9 CFR 303.2(h) and 381.3(b) provide for the Administrator to waive for limited periods any provisions of the regulations to permit experimentation so that new procedures, equipment, or processing techniques may be tested to facilitate definite improvements. Under these regulations, FSIS may only grant waivers from the provisions in the regulations that are not in conflict with the purposes or provisions of the FMIA or PPIA (9 CFR 303.1(h) and 381.3(b)).
FSIS decides whether to grant requests for waivers based on proposals and documentation submitted by establishments to demonstrate that the use of a new technology is scientifically sound; that it will facilitate definite improvements; and that issuing the waiver will not conflict with the provisions of the FMIA or PPIA.
Under SIP, the Agency grants meat and poultry slaughter establishments waivers of regulatory requirements on condition that they will conduct regular microbial testing and share the resulting data with FSIS. The Agency described preliminary details of SIP in a January 28, 2008,
SIP establishments test for
In 1996, FSIS published its Pathogen Reduction/HACCP (PR/HACCP) final rule as the first step of a comprehensive initiative to target the Agency's resources to address the public health risks associated with foodborne pathogens, which cannot be detected by organoleptic inspection (61 FR 38868, July 25, 1996). Under FSIS's PR/HACCP regulations, establishments are required to develop and implement a system of preventive controls to ensure that their products are safe. This approach gives establishments more flexibility to determine how they can best meet the Agency's regulatory requirements. FSIS verifies the adequacy and effectiveness of establishments' HACCP systems.
In 1997, in order to improve food safety and the effectiveness of inspection systems, reduce the risk of foodborne illness in the United States, remove unnecessary regulatory obstacles to innovation, and make better use of the Agency's resources, FSIS announced, in a
Under the initial HIMP inspection models approach, establishment personnel were responsible for sorting and removing animals unfit for slaughter and identifying and removing abnormal carcasses and parts, and FSIS inspection personnel performed inspection activities that focused on the areas of greatest risk in the hog slaughter inspection system in each establishment.
In 1998, the American Federation of Government Employees, several FSIS inspectors, and a public interest organization filed suit to enjoin FSIS from implementing the HIMP model. The plaintiffs alleged that HIMP violated the requirement in the FMIA that government inspectors conduct a post-mortem inspection of each carcass. Specifically, the FMIA provides that the Secretary shall cause to be made by inspectors a post-mortem inspection of the carcasses and parts thereof of all amenable species to be prepared at any slaughtering, meat-canning, salting, packing, rendering, or similar establishment (21 U.S.C. 604). The district court upheld HIMP, finding that the word “inspection”, as used in the statute, does not necessarily mandate a direct, physical examination of each carcass by an FSIS inspector, and that the model program was a rational policy judgment within the discretion afforded to the Secretary.
The plaintiffs appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The Court of Appeals found that the FMIA requires Federal inspectors—rather than plant employees—to make the decision whether each carcass is adulterated within the meaning of the statute (
In response to the Court of Appeals' opinion, FSIS modified HIMP to position up to three
The plaintiffs again appealed to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The plaintiffs argued that the modified inspection procedures were not in compliance with the Court of Appeals' prior opinion because FSIS had delegated some inspection duties to plant employees who were responsible for sorting defective carcasses and making preliminary decisions regarding adulteration. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, finding that the FMIA does not prohibit plant employees from paring down the overall number of carcasses by sorting and removing carcasses before they reach the Federal inspector (
The plaintiffs also argued that the line speeds allowed in the HIMP plants were too fast to allow Federal inspectors to make a critical appraisal of each carcass. The Court found that FSIS's decision to allow higher line speeds was reasonable in light of the fact that establishment employees are required to sort carcasses and parts and identify defects prior to Federal inspection, resulting in fewer adulterated carcasses and parts being presented for Federal inspection. The Court also noted that although the FMIA delineates what must be inspected and by whom, it does not define exactly what constitutes an inspection. The court concluded that HIMP, as modified, reflected a reasonable design of an inspection system by the agency charged with responsibility for administering the FMIA and that it would rely on the Agency's experience and informed judgment in evaluating the validity of the system under the law. Under these circumstances, the Court of Appeals upheld HIMP, as modified.
The revised HIMP study was initiated in five market hog slaughter establishments on a waiver basis.
Similar to the voluntary segregation procedures described above in establishments that slaughter only
Under HIMP, post-mortem inspection is conducted by up to three online inspectors who visually inspect the head, viscera, and carcass of each hog at fixed locations on the evisceration line. Before FSIS online inspection, establishment personnel sort carcasses and parts and trim dressing defects and contamination (
Under HIMP, offline inspection consists of system verification activities through which FSIS continuously monitors and evaluates establishment process control. FSIS conducts more offline, food safety related verification inspection activities under HIMP than under traditional inspection. Some examples of food safety related verification inspection activities include: HACCP, sanitation SOP, and other prerequisite program verification procedures, including 24 carcass verification checks per shift specifically for generalized diseases and conditions and for contamination (compared to 11 carcass verification checks per shift under traditional inspection). FSIS also conducts more offline humane handling verification tasks under HIMP than under traditional inspection.
FSIS has concluded that the HIMP model has a number of benefits, such as focusing FSIS inspection personnel on the areas of greatest risk in the hog slaughter system and providing an incentive to establishments to improve and innovate, while ensuring effective online inspection.
In 2013, the U.S. General Accountability Office (GAO) and the USDA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) evaluated FSIS's HIMP pilot study and issued findings and recommendations.
The OIG report also included recommendations related to HIMP procedures. According to the OIG, FSIS did not adequately oversee the HIMP program because the Agency did not evaluate whether the program resulted in a measurable improvement of the inspection process; allowed one HIMP plant to forgo the standard FSIS policy to manually inspect viscera; and did not have formal agreements with the HIMP plants. In response to OIG, FSIS agreed to complete an evaluation of HIMP market hog establishments.
In 2014, in response to the GAO and OIG reports, FSIS conducted a comprehensive analysis of data collected from the operation of HIMP in market hog establishments and prepared a written report (the “Hog HIMP Report”) that presents a thorough evaluation of the models tested. Based on this evaluation, FSIS concluded that market hog slaughter establishments participating in HIMP were performing as well as comparable large non-HIMP market hog establishments and meeting FSIS requirements for operating under waivers through the HIMP project.
A summary of the Hog HIMP Report is provided below. The full Hog HIMP Report is available on the FSIS website at:
FSIS established three categories of food safety related performance standards under HIMP for these conditions: “FS–1” addresses infectious conditions (
FSIS established the performance standard for non-food safety OCP
The Hog HIMP Report describes FSIS's microbiological and inspection findings in the five market hog slaughter establishments participating in HIMP and compares them with 21 non-HIMP establishments of comparable production volume, line speed, and days of operation. The evaluation is based on establishment performance results for calendar years CY2006 through CY2010, and CY2012 through CY2013. Establishment performance results from CY2006 to CY2010 are based on data from the previously used Performance Based Inspection System (PBIS) database and results from CY2012 to CY2013 are based on data from the new Public Health Information System (PHIS) database. FSIS began transitioning establishments from PBIS to the PHIS in April 2011. The period April 2011 to December 2011 was a transitional period during which the inspection results for some establishments were recorded under PBIS, while others were recorded under PHIS. The data under the two systems are not completely compatible because inspection task codes and noncompliance records (NRs) were recorded differently in PHIS than in PBIS. For this reason, the transitional period CY2011 is not included in the Hog HIMP Report, and the analysis of CY2006 through CY2010 data is separate from the CY2012 through CY2013 data.
Across HIMP and non-HIMP establishments, analyses compared the number of offline inspection procedures, the rates of health-related regulatory non-compliances,
The Hog HIMP Report found that the rate of ante- and post-mortem sorting by HIMP establishment personnel was comparable to the rate of ante- and post-mortem condemnation by FSIS inspectors at non-HIMP market hog establishments (3.0 per 1,000 hogs compared to 2.7 per 1,000 hogs, respectively). The Hog HIMP Report also found that FSIS inspectors in HIMP establishments performed more offline inspection activities than in non-HIMP establishments to verify that the establishments are executing their HIMP slaughter process control plans. In CY2010, FSIS inspectors performed an average of 2,061 offline verification inspections per HIMP market hog establishment compared to an average of 1,482 offline verification inspection procedures per non-HIMP establishment. Accordingly, FSIS inspectors performed 1.4 times more offline verification inspection procedures in HIMP market hog establishments than in non-HIMP market hog establishments. In CY2013, FSIS inspectors performed an average of 19,180 Public Health Regulation (PHR)
The sanitation SOP regulations in 9 CFR 416 and the HACCP regulations in 9 CFR 417 are among the regulations most strongly related to public health. The Hog HIMP Report found that in CY2010, FSIS inspectors performed 1.5 times more offline sanitation SOP and HACCP inspection verifications of public health-related regulations in HIMP than non-HIMP market hog comparison establishments. In CY2012 and CY2013, FSIS inspectors performed 1.1 times more offline sanitation SOP and HACCP inspection verifications of public health-related regulations in HIMP than non-HIMP market hog comparison establishments.
The regression analysis of historical data that was included in FSIS's “Risk Assessment for Guiding Public Health-Based Poultry Slaughter Inspection,” which was used to inform the final rule “Modernization of Poultry Slaughter Inspection” (79 FR 49565), showed a statistically significant correlation between unscheduled offline inspection procedures and reduction in the prevalence of
To assess the microbiological outcomes of HIMP establishments' process control plans, the Hog HIMP Report analyzed data from FSIS's
The Hog HIMP Report also analyzed data from FSIS's residue sampling program for chemical contaminants including approved and unapproved veterinary drugs, pesticides, and environmental compounds. FSIS conducts directed sampling scheduled by FSIS Headquarters and inspector-generated sampling when the FSIS PHV suspects that an animal may have a violative level of chemical residue. The Hog HIMP Report found no differences in the number of scheduled directed samples collected in the HIMP market hog establishments and those in the non-HIMP market hog comparison establishments. However, the Hog HIMP Report found that FSIS offline inspectors at the HIMP market hog establishments were able to collect 2.7 times more inspector-generated residue samples than inspectors at the non-HIMP market hog comparison establishments for CY2009–2010, and 1.7 times more for CY2012–2013 because the inspectors had more time to conduct offline activities. Data from FSIS's residue sampling program showed that from CY2006 to CY2010, the number of samples that tested positive for violative levels of chemical residues in HIMP market hog establishments were not statistically significantly different from those in the non-HIMP market hog comparison establishments (zero versus six (0.057 percent of samples)). However, from CY2012 to CY2013, the amount of samples that tested positive for violative levels of chemical residues in HIMP market hog establishments was statistically significantly lower than non-HIMP market hog comparison establishments (nine violative levels (0.15 percent of samples) versus 115 (0.76 percent of samples). The Hog HIMP Report explained that this difference could suggest that the HIMP market hog establishments are exercising active control of potential chemical hazards in their products, and that this approach may result from better control over contract grower relationships by the five HIMP market hog establishments.
The Hog HIMP Report concluded that HIMP market hog establishments are receiving more offline food safety related inspection verification checks than the non-HIMP market hog comparison establishments, and that the HIMP inspection system, which provides for increased offline inspection activities that are directly related to food safety, results in greater compliance with sanitation and HACCP regulations (9 CFR parts 416 and 417); carcasses with equivalent or lower levels of
FSIS inspectors verify that establishments comply with the HMSA by performing Humane Activities Tracking System (HATS) tasks that are divided into nine categories. The HATS tasks provide FSIS with data on the time that FSIS inspectors spend verifying whether (1) establishments adapt their facilities to inclement weather; (2) humanely handle livestock during truck unloading; (3) provide water and feed to livestock in holding pens; (4) humanely handle livestock during ante-mortem inspection; (5) humanely handle “U.S. Suspect” and disabled livestock; (6) move livestock without excessive prodding or the use of sharp objects after ante-mortem inspection; (7) prevent livestock from slipping and falling; (8) effectively administer stunning methods that produce unconsciousness in the animals; and (9) ensure that animals do not regain consciousness throughout the shackling, sticking, and bleeding process. FSIS inspectors enter the hours devoted to verifying humane handling activities for the HATS categories. The data is entered into PHIS in one-quarter hour increments (
The Hog HIMP Report did not address compliance with the HMSA, but FSIS reviewed HATS task data in PHIS from January 2013 through September 2015 and compared the number of offline humane handling activities performed in five HIMP market hog establishments and the same 21 comparable large non-HIMP market hog establishments that FSIS used in the Hog HIMP Report. The Agency found that FSIS inspectors spent more time verifying that specific humane handling and slaughter requirements were met in HIMP market hog establishments than in non-HIMP market hog establishments. FSIS inspectors devoted approximately 5.33 hours per shift to verifying humane handling activities for the HATS categories in HIMP market hog establishments compared to approximately 4.29 hours per shift in the 21 non-HIMP market hog comparison establishments. FSIS also compared the rate of humane handling NRs issued in HIMP market hog establishments and non-HIMP market hog establishments. FSIS inspectors documented fewer humane handling NRs in HIMP market hog establishments than in non-HIMP market hog establishments. From January 2013 through September 2015, FSIS recorded 11 humane handling NRs in five HIMP market hog establishments and 117 NRs in the 21 non-HIMP market hog comparison establishments. It should be noted that none of the 11 NRs recorded in the HIMP establishments documented market hogs being forced to
FSIS completed a quantitative risk assessment to determine how performing a greater number of offline inspection procedures in market hog slaughter establishments might affect the number of human illnesses from
FSIS developed the market hog risk assessment to help the Agency inform its judgement about the potential impact of changes to FSIS's swine inspection system on risks to public health associated with pork products. To give the Agency the information it needed, the market hog risk assessment focused on three risk management questions:
(1) What predicted effects will various models for increasing the number of offline inspection tasks in non-HIMP establishments have on human salmonellosis rates?
(2) Where can inspectors be relocated to have the most impact toward reducing
(3) What is the magnitude of uncertainty about the predicted prevalence of pathogens and corresponding illness effects?
FSIS developed a risk assessment model for exploring the potential relationships between current variations in inspection personnel assignments and prevalence of
FSIS employed a stochastic simulation model using multi-variable logistic regressions to identify correlations between (1) the numbers of offline food-safety inspection procedures, both scheduled and unscheduled, along with the numbers of non-compliances and scheduled-but-not-completed procedures, and (2) contamination of hog carcasses with
The regression analysis of historical data included in the market hog risk assessment showed a statistically significant correlation between (1) increased scheduled and unscheduled offline procedures and decreased scheduled but not performed procedures and (2) reduction in the prevalence of
In answer to the first risk-management question, the market hog risk assessment results suggest that, depending on how reallocation of inspection activities is implemented, it is likely that changes in offline inspection would not result in an increase in the prevalence of
Responding to the second question, modeling and scenario analysis results suggest that increasing scheduled and unscheduled procedures and decreasing scheduled but not performed procedures would be most effective in reducing pathogen occurrence on carcasses because of consistency in the decision variable parameter's effect across all models. However, each category of offline procedures relates to an individual decrease in
In answer to the third risk-management question, on the uncertainty of the results for pathogen prevalence and illness reductions, FSIS's modeling approach includes the inherent uncertainty about the relationship between the frequency of inspection activities and pathogen prevalence, about the actual change in future inspection activities that would
FSIS is proposing to create a new swine slaughter inspection system, the NSIS, informed by the Agency's experiences under HIMP and NPIS. All establishments that slaughter market hogs would be permitted to operate under the proposed NSIS. Establishments that slaughter classes of swine other than market hogs would be permitted to operate under NSIS under a waiver through the SIP. FSIS would consider the data collected in swine slaughter establishments operating under a SIP waiver to determine whether to expand NSIS to other classes of swine. Establishments that slaughter market hogs and other classes of swine, and that do not want to slaughter other classes of swine under NSIS under a waiver through the SIP, would be permitted to slaughter market hogs under NSIS and to slaughter the other classes of swine under traditional inspection. FSIS would staff such establishments to NSIS and would not add additional staff for traditional inspection; therefore, establishments would need to operate traditional inspection under slower line speeds than they are currently operating to accommodate for the reduced number of inspectors. FSIS seeks comment on the impact of staffing at establishments that slaughter market hogs and other classes of swine and how it will impact their decision to participate in NSIS.
Under the proposed NSIS, establishment personnel would be required to sort market hogs and remove for disposal animals unfit for slaughter before they are presented to FSIS PHVs for inspection and final disposition. Establishment personnel would sort animals that appear to be healthy into “Normal” pens and animals that appear to have diseases or abnormal conditions into “Subject” pens. Establishment personnel may also sort and remove animals with localized conditions (
FSIS also is proposing to require that establishments immediately notify FSIS inspectors in the rare circumstance that they suspect animals of having notifiable or foreign animal diseases during sorting activities. For example, establishments may suspect that market hogs have notifiable or foreign animal diseases if they observe animals with abnormal lesions or behavior, or an abnormal change in the amount of animals that arrive to the establishment dead. Notifiable diseases are those that are designated by the World Animal Health Organization (Office International des Epizooties or OIE). The list of notifiable diseases includes anthrax, cysticercosis, scabies, bovine tuberculosis, myiasis (screwworm), and vesicular diseases. Of these diseases, anthrax, cysticercosis, and bovine tuberculosis are transmissible to humans. The complete list is available on OIE's website at
Under the proposed NSIS, FSIS would maintain its zero tolerance for market hogs exhibiting signs of moribundity, CNS conditions, and pyrexia. Market hogs exhibiting signs of these generalized diseases or conditions, if not sorted and removed by the establishment before ante-mortem inspection, would be condemned by FSIS PHVs, as under the existing regulations (9 CFR 309.3). FSIS PHVs would issue an NR for every animal exhibiting signs of moribundity, CNS conditions, or pyrexia found by the FSIS inspector after the establishment sorting step is completed.
Additionally, under the proposed NSIS, FSIS would maintain its zero tolerance for violative levels of chemical residues. Establishments would be required to address chemical hazards through their HACCP program including preventing animals with violative levels of chemical residues from being presented for slaughter. FSIS inspectors would continue to select animals at post-mortem and perform chemical residue sample collection and testing procedures in accordance with FSIS Directive 10,800.1, Residue Sampling, Testing and Other Verification Procedures under the National Residue Program for Meat and Poultry Products (available on FSIS's website at
Under the proposed NSIS, establishment personnel would be required to identify carcasses of market hogs sorted and removed by establishment employees before FSIS inspection and intended for disposal and destruction with a unique tag, tattoo, or similar device. Establishment personnel also would be required to immediately denature all carcasses and parts removed as unacceptable by plant sorters on-site, even if establishments have tanking facilities, to ensure that the carcasses and parts are properly disposed of and never enter commerce. Under the proposed NSIS, establishment personnel would be required to maintain records to
In addition to the total number of animals sorted and removed by establishment personnel per day before FSIS ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection, FSIS is requesting comments on whether or not the Agency should require establishments under NSIS to specify in their records the reason that the animals were removed from slaughter, including animals sorted and removed because they were dead on arrival or suspected of having CNS conditions, pneumonia, pyrexia, septicemia, erysipelas, or tuberculosis (
Under the proposed NSIS, establishment personnel would be required to sort carcasses and parts and trim dressing defects and contamination (
Carcasses and parts contaminated with fecal material, ingesta, or milk or that exhibit signs of septicemia, toxemia, pyemia, or cysticercosis during post-mortem examination are likely to contain infectious agents, such as bacteria, virus, richettsia, fungus, protozoa, or helminth organisms, which can be transmitted to humans. For this reason, they present a food safety risk if they are permitted to enter the cooler. Therefore, FSIS is proposing that establishments under the new system address, as part of their HACCP systems, procedures for ensuring that carcasses and parts contaminated with fecal material, ingesta, or milk or affected by septicemia, toxemia, pyemia, or cysticercosis are trimmed or identified by the establishment before they are presented to the FSIS carcass inspector and disposed of under FSIS supervision. These procedures must cover establishment sorting activities for these conditions.
Under this proposal, FSIS would maintain its zero tolerance for carcasses and parts contaminated by fecal material, ingesta, or milk, or affected by septicemia, toxemia, pyemia, or cysticercosis. If FSIS online inspectors discover a carcass contaminated by fecal material, ingesta, or milk, they would stop the line for carcass reexamination and trimming by the establishment unless the establishment elected to provide a rail-out loop to rail contaminated carcasses offline for reexamination, trimming, and positioning back on the line for reinspection, consistent with the existing regulations (9 CFR 310.17 and 310.18) and FSIS Directive 6420.2,
FSIS is not proposing to prescribe specific sorter training or certification to give establishments operating under the NSIS the flexibility to select the training program that would best assist them to meet the requirements of this proposed rule. However, the Agency has developed a draft guidance document to assist establishments in training their sorters should this rule become final. The draft guidance is based on the training that FSIS provides to online inspection personnel that are responsible for identifying these non-food safety defects on carcasses and
FSIS believes that training of sorters is important to ensure that they are able to properly perform their duties. Proper training is necessary if sorters are to make accurate decisions on how to address animal disease conditions and trim and dressing defects. Under the proposed NSIS, if sorters do not make these decisions correctly, FSIS inspection personnel would take appropriate action such as stopping the line, issuing NRs, and directing the establishment to reduce the line speed. FSIS would thereby ensure that the establishment is able to maintain process control as evidenced by preventing fecal contamination and meeting microbial performance measures, that the establishment sorters are able to successfully perform their duties, and that the FSIS online inspectors are able to conduct a proper food safety inspection.
Establishments that operate under the proposed NSIS would have greater flexibility over their production process. For example, establishments operating under the proposed NSIS would have the flexibility to reconfigure lines if they decided to change the way that the head, viscera, and carcasses are presented to FSIS inspectors to improve ergonomics and process control and to maintain optimum line speed. FSIS would still inspect the head, viscera, and carcass of each animal. However, under the proposed NSIS, establishments may reconfigure their lines so that they present a ready-to-inspect head, viscera, and carcass for FSIS post-mortem inspection in one location or separately in two or three locations. FSIS would assign one to three inspectors to conduct online inspection activities, depending on need and line configuration. These inspectors would also rotate to conduct offline inspection activities. FSIS would assign one online inspector only if the Agency had the data and experience (including processes and procedures) to ensure that one inspector is able to conduct all online post-mortem inspection activities. Under the proposed NSIS, all establishments with fewer than three inspection stations would be required to provide a mirror at the carcass inspection station in accordance with 9 CFR 307.2 (m)(6) so that the inspector standing at the inspection station can readily view the back of the carcass for evidence that could impact food safety.
Under NSIS, as under HIMP, establishment sorters would be required to incise mandibular lymph nodes and palpate the viscera to detect the presence of animal diseases (
Moreover, Denmark and the Netherlands already conduct alternative post-mortem visual inspections and allow establishments to use discretion when determining, on a lot-by-lot basis, whether or not to incise lymph nodes and palpate the viscera. Under the FMIA and the regulations that implement it, meat and meat products imported into the United States must be produced under standards for safety, wholesomeness, and labeling accuracy that are equivalent to those of the United States (21 U.S.C. 620). FSIS has reviewed Denmark's and the Netherlands' market hog slaughter inspection systems and found them to be equivalent to the United States' market hog slaughter inspection system. FSIS determined that visual post-mortem inspection will still allow veterinary inspectors to palpate and incise lymph nodes and organs (as occurs in traditional inspection) at their discretion. Each herd of hogs that arrives at establishments to be slaughtered is accompanied by historical “Supply-Chain Information,” which consists of paperwork that documents the health status and history of each herd, complete traceback information, as well as details about the originating farm (
FSIS also is proposing to require establishment personnel to maintain records to document the number of carcasses and parts disposed of by establishment personnel per day as part of their sorting activities. The records would not need to include the number of carcasses condemned by FSIS. These records would be subject to review by FSIS inspectors. Under NSIS, FSIS inspectors would document in PHIS the total number of carcasses and parts sorted and disposed of by plant employees per day. FSIS inspectors would continue to enter dispositions for each and every carcass condemned by FSIS into PHIS.
In addition to the online inspectors performing carcass inspection, FSIS is proposing that up to two inspectors be assigned for each evisceration line per shift to conduct offline verification activities in establishments operating under the proposed NSIS. Inspectors conducting offline inspection activities would rotate with the inspectors conducting online inspection activities. FSIS is also proposing to assign one PHV to make carcass and parts dispositions.
As in HIMP, offline inspectors under the new inspection system would conduct food safety related inspection activities and would continuously
As discussed above, under HIMP, OCP standards are non-food safety standards concerned primarily with diseases of no public health significance and carcass processing defects. Data collected from market hog establishments operating under HIMP show that from CY 2012 through 2013, HIMP establishments maintained OCP defect levels that average about half the corresponding OCP performance standards derived from the performance of non-HIMP establishments. Thus, the data show that establishments operating under the HIMP system do exceptionally well in controlling OCP defects.
Accordingly, FSIS is not proposing OCP requirements as a condition for establishments to participate in the proposed NSIS. Under this proposal, establishments operating under NSIS would be allowed to implement the process controls that they have determined will best allow them to produce an RTC pork product that is wholesome and not adulterated. The new proposed definition of RTC pork product is any slaughtered pork product free from bile, hair, scurf, dirt, hooves, toe nails, claws, bruises, edema, scabs, skin lesions, icterus, foreign material, and odor which is suitable for cooking without need of further processing.
Under the proposed NSIS, establishments would have the flexibility to design and implement measures to address OCP defects that are best suited to their operations. They would also be responsible for determining the type of records that will best document that they are meeting the RTC pork product definition. The records would be subject to review and evaluation by FSIS inspectors.
For their record reviews, FSIS inspectors would verify that establishments operating under the proposed NSIS have written criteria for determining whether carcasses meet the RTC definition and that they are documenting that the pork products resulting from their slaughter operations meet these criteria before packaging or further processing that would conceal a defect. Records that would meet the proposed requirements include:
• The records system that the establishment uses to document that it is producing RTC pork. For example, an establishment may use statistical process control charts, HACCP records, or other documentation.
• The points in the operation where the establishment monitors carcasses to determine whether they meet the RTC definition and records the results of its monitoring activities. For example, an establishment may conduct monitoring and record the results at a pre-evisceration and a post-chill station.
• The frequency with which the establishment conducts monitoring activities. The records should specify how often the establishment monitors carcasses per line per shift. For example, an establishment may conduct and document its monitoring activities at least every two hours per line per shift at the pre-evisceration location and at least twice per shift per line for post-chill location.
• The definitions of the OCP non-conformances or processing and trim defects for which the establishment is monitoring. For example, the establishment may be monitoring carcasses for processing and trim non-conformances as specified for trim and processing OCP defects specified under the HIMP OCP performance standards, or defects as defined in a published study or a study that the establishment conducted itself. If the establishment references a study, it should give a brief description of the study and have the supporting information on file.
• The criteria that the establishment would use to determine that the products resulting from its slaughter operation meet the RTC definition. For example, an establishment may follow the subgroup limits for non-conformances and defects in the trim and processing defect levels for the HIMP OCP performance standards, or it may determine the upper limits for non-conformances using a statistical process control program.
• The corrective actions that the establishment would take if the levels of defects and non-conformances exceed its evaluation criteria for RTC pork.
Under this proposed rule, pork carcasses that meet the OCP performance standards under HIMP would be considered “suitable for cooking without the need for further processing,” and as such, meet the RTC pork product definition. Therefore, establishments operating under the NSIS that adopt the OCP HIMP performance standards as their criteria for determining whether they are producing RTC pork product would meet the regulatory requirements if: (1) They can document that the products resulting from their slaughter operations consistently meet these standards, and (2) FSIS inspectors do not observe persistent, unattended defects on the products resulting from the establishment's slaughter operations. Establishments that adopt criteria other than the HIMP OCP standards would be required to have documentation to demonstrate how they will use these criteria to demonstrate that the products resulting from their slaughter operations meet the RTC pork product definition.
In addition to record reviews, FSIS inspectors would verify that establishments operating under the NSIS are producing RTC pork product by visually observing carcasses as part of their inspection activities. The presence of persistent, unattended trim and dressing defects on carcasses at the end of the process would indicate that the establishment is not producing RTC pork product. It may also indicate a general lack of control in an establishment's overall slaughter and dressing process. Thus, if inspectors observe persistent, unattended defects, FSIS would require that the establishment take appropriate actions to ensure that its process is under control and that it is operating under conditions necessary to produce safe, wholesome, and unadulterated RTC products. If inspection personnel through their record review or direct observation of carcasses find evidence that an establishment is producing pork that does not meet the RTC definition, the IIC would be authorized to take appropriate action to ensure that the establishment remedies the defects, including requiring that the establishment slow the evisceration line speed.
Based on FSIS's experience under HIMP, the Agency is proposing to allow
Establishments operating under HIMP have demonstrated that they are capable of consistently producing safe, wholesome, and unadulterated pork products while operating at these line speeds. Moreover, they have consistently met pathogen reduction and other performance standards when operating at the line speeds they established under HIMP. The proposed new inspection system was informed by the Agency's experience under HIMP and, as discussed later in this document, also incorporates additional measures that will apply to all swine slaughter establishments. These measures, which include testing for microbial organisms at pre-evisceration and post-chill, are designed to ensure that establishments maintain process control.
FSIS recognizes that evaluation of the effects of line speed on food safety should include the effects of line speed on establishment employee safety. FSIS compared in-establishment injury rates between HIMP and traditional establishments from 2002 to 2010. The preliminary analysis shows that HIMP establishments had lower mean injury rates than non-HIMP establishments. The analysis uses injury rate data by occupational injury estimates that are derived from the BLS annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII)
FSIS is requesting comments on the effects of faster line speeds on worker safety. Specifically, FSIS is requesting comments on whether line speeds for the NSIS should be set at the current regulatory limit of 1,106 hph or some other number. The Agency is also interested in comments on the availability of records or studies that contain data that OSHA or the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) may be able to use in analyzing the effects of increased line speed on the safety and health of employees throughout the establishment, including effects prior to and following the evisceration line. FSIS is also requesting comments on whether the Agency should maintain the 1,106 hph maximum line speed for establishments operating under NSIS but grant waivers from the maximum line speed to establishments that agree to work with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NIOSH to evaluate the effects of waivers of line speed restrictions on employee health. FSIS is requesting comments on best practices and other measures that establishments can take to protect workers throughout the plant, including possible protective factors such as increasing the size of the workforce, rotating assignments, increased automation, or improved tools and techniques.
FSIS is proposing to require each establishment that operates under the NSIS to provide an annual attestation to the management member of the local FSIS circuit safety committee stating that the establishment maintains a program to monitor and document any work-related conditions that arise among establishment workers. The elements of this program would include:
(1) Policies to encourage early reporting of symptoms of work-related injuries and illnesses, and assurance that the establishment has no policies or programs intended to discourage the reporting of injuries and illnesses.
(2) Notification to employees of the nature and early symptoms of occupational illnesses and injuries, in a manner and language that workers can understand, including by posting in a conspicuous place or places where notices to employees are customarily posted, a copy of the FSIS/OSHA poster encouraging reporting and describing reportable signs and symptoms.
(3) Monitoring on a regular and routine basis of injury and illness logs, as well as nurse or medical office logs, workers' compensation data, and any other injury or illness information available.
FSIS is also proposing to create a new severability clause (proposed 9 CFR 310.28), which would state that should a court of competent jurisdiction hold any provision of the proposed worker safety attestation requirement (proposed 9 CFR 310.27) to be invalid, such action would not affect any other provision of 9 CFR parts 309 and 310.
As OSHA is the Federal agency with statutory and regulatory authority to promote workplace safety and health, FSIS would forward the annual attestations to OSHA for further review. OSHA, in turn, may use the information in the attestations in its own enforcement program. FSIS employees would not be responsible for determining the merit of the content of each establishment's monitoring program or enforcement of noncompliance with this section. FSIS would work with OSHA to develop the poster that establishments must display providing information on the signs and symptoms of occupational injuries and illnesses experienced by market hog slaughter workers, and about workers' rights to report these conditions without fear of retaliation.
In 1997, FSIS published a
FSIS also enforces a zero tolerance policy for contamination by ingesta and milk because the microbial pathogens associated with ingesta and milk contamination are likely sources of potential food safety hazards in slaughter establishments. As mentioned above, the regulations require establishments to handle livestock carcasses and carcass parts to prevent contamination and promptly remove contamination if it occurs (9 CFR 310.18) The regulations also require that lactating mammary glands and diseased mammary glands of swine be removed without opening the milk ducts or sinuses because if pus or other objectionable material is permitted to come in contact with the carcass, the parts of the carcass are contaminated and must be removed and condemned (9 CFR 310.17). Because such contamination is largely preventable, most slaughter establishments already have in place procedures designed to prevent and remove ingesta and milk.
FSIS is now proposing to amend 9 CFR 310.18 to require swine slaughter establishments to develop, implement, and maintain as part of their HACCP systems, written procedures to ensure that no visible fecal material, ingesta, or milk is present by the point of post-mortem inspection of swine carcasses. Such a requirement would ensure that establishments maintain the records to verify that they have implemented the necessary measures and, when necessary, have taken appropriate corrective actions to prevent carcasses contaminated with visible fecal material, ingesta, or milk at or after the final rail.
Although the existing requirements for establishments to prevent visible fecal material, ingesta, or milk at or after the final rail, and the proposed requirement described above that establishments must have procedures addressing how they do so, are important safeguards, those safeguards would not be fully effective if an appropriate effort is not made to prevent contamination from occurring throughout the slaughter and dressing operation. Fecal material is a major vehicle for spreading pathogenic microorganisms, such as
Under HACCP, establishments are responsible for identifying food safety hazards that are reasonably likely to occur in the production process and for implementing preventive measures to control those hazards. Failure to implement preventive measures throughout the slaughter and dressing process can lead to the creation of insanitary conditions in the establishment and increases the potential for carcasses and parts to become contaminated with enteric pathogens, fecal material, ingesta, and milk. Interventions with chemical antimicrobials applied at the end of the process are less likely to be fully effective on carcasses that contain high levels of pathogens, and these chemical treatments are not effective in preventing insanitary conditions throughout the slaughter establishment.
To ensure that establishments implement appropriate measures to prevent carcasses from becoming contaminated with pathogens, and to ensure that both FSIS and establishments have the documentation they need to verify the effectiveness of these measures on an on-going basis, FSIS is proposing to require that all swine slaughter establishments develop, implement, and maintain written procedures to prevent contamination of carcasses and parts by enteric pathogens, fecal material, ingesta, and milk throughout the entire slaughter and dressing operation. FSIS is proposing that establishments incorporate these procedures into their HACCP systems and that they maintain records sufficient to document the implementation and monitoring of these procedures. These proposed requirements are necessary to fully implement the existing HACCP regulations.
Information that FSIS has collected from investigations it has conducted in establishments that have received a Notice of Intended Enforcement due to
For example, FSIS conducted an investigation at a swine slaughter establishment that resulted in a Notice of Intended Enforcement after a State department of health conducted sampling and found the presence of
Under this proposed rule, establishments will be required to incorporate these procedures into HACCP systems, and to maintain on-going documentation to demonstrate that the procedures are effective. FSIS is
In light of these changes, FSIS is proposing to rescind the generic
Under this proposed rule, instead of following a prescribed microbiological testing program, each establishment would be responsible for developing and implementing its own microbiological sampling plan, which would be required to include carcass sampling at pre-evisceration and post-chill. FSIS considers the microbial load of hog carcasses at pre-evisceration to be a valuable source of data about how well an establishment is taking into account the sanitary condition of live hogs coming to slaughter and the processing steps (
Because FSIS is proposing that establishments' microbiological sampling plans be part of their HACCP systems, all swine slaughter establishments would be required to provide scientific or technical documentation to support the judgments made in designing their sampling plans (see 9 CFR 417.4(a)). Under this proposal, establishments could develop sampling plans to test carcasses for enteric pathogens, such as
FSIS is proposing to prescribe a minimum frequency with which establishments would be required to collect two samples, one at pre-evisceration and one at post-chill, or, for very small and very low volume establishments, a single post-chill sample. Under the proposed rule, establishments, except for very small and very low volume establishments
FSIS is proposing to allow establishments to substitute alternative sampling locations if they are able to demonstrate that the alternative sampling locations provide a definite improvement in monitoring process control than at pre-evisceration and post-chill. FSIS is also proposing to allow establishments to substitute alternative sampling frequencies if they are able to demonstrate that the alternative is an integral part of the establishments' verification procedures for their HACCP plans.
This proposed rule does not mandate that establishments meet specific performance standards for microbial testing. Because establishments would be required to incorporate their procedures for preventing contamination by enteric pathogens and other contamination (
Under this proposed rule, FSIS would verify the effectiveness of establishments' process control procedures in preventing carcasses from becoming contaminated with enteric pathogens, fecal material, ingesta, and milk by reviewing the establishments' monitoring records, including the establishments' microbial testing results, observing establishments implementing their procedures, and inspecting carcasses and parts for visible fecal, ingesta, and milk contamination when conducting both online carcass inspection and offline verification inspection procedures.
If inspection personnel determine that an establishment's process control procedures are not effective in preventing contamination by enteric pathogens, fecal material, ingesta, and milk, the Agency would take appropriate regulatory action to ensure that the establishment's production process is in control, and that product is not being adulterated. Such action could include performing additional visual inspections of products or equipment and facilities, increasing offline verification inspections, initiating Food Safety Assessments (FSAs), conducting hazard analysis verification procedures, and retaining or condemning product.
Finally, 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. These procedures must include sampling and analysis of food-contact surfaces, reuse water, and equipment, including knives, in edible food production departments in the pre-operational environment for microbial organisms to ensure that the surfaces are sanitary and free of enteric pathogens. The sampling frequency must be adequate to monitor the establishment's ability to maintain sanitary conditions in the pre-operational environment. FSIS is proposing this environmental sampling requirement because in 2015, 152 people became ill after consumption of product produced at an establishment where FSIS found evidence during an investigation of insanitary conditions, including, but not limited to, tables and knives in the pre-operational environment that were contaminated with
If this proposed rule becomes final, establishments interested in NSIS would need to notify FSIS in writing of their intent to operate under the new inspection system. The Agency is also considering establishing separate applicability dates for large, small, and very small establishments to comply with the proposed regulations that prescribe procedures for controlling visible fecal, ingesta, and milk contamination; the regulations that prescribe procedures for controlling contamination throughout the slaughter and dressing process; and the regulations that prescribe recordkeeping requirements. The applicability dates would provide additional time for small and very small establishments to comply with these provisions. The Agency is requesting comments on its proposed implementation plan, especially the phased in applicability dates for the proposed provisions in the rule that prescribe requirements for all swine slaughter establishments.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 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 a “significant” regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
FSIS is requesting comments on:
1. Whether or not the Agency should require establishments under NSIS to specify in their records the reason that the animals were removed from slaughter and how this information should be collected.
2. The draft compliance guides.
3. Whether or not the Agency should allow establishments that operate under the proposed NSIS to use discretion when deciding, on a lot-by-lot basis, whether or not to incise mandibular lymph nodes and palpate the viscera to detect the presence of animal diseases (
4. The effects of faster line speeds on worker safety.
a. Whether line speeds for the NSIS should be set at the current regulatory limit of 1,106 hph or some other number.
b. The availability of records or studies that contain data that FSIS may be able to use in analyzing the effects of increased line speed on the safety and health of employees throughout the establishment, including effects prior to and following the evisceration line.
c. Whether the Agency should maintain the 1,106 hph maximum line speed for establishments operating under NSIS but grant waivers from the maximum line speed to establishments that agree to work with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to evaluate the effects of waivers of line speed restrictions on employee health.
5. The proposed sampling requirements, especially the environmental sampling requirement.
6. The proposed implementation plan, especially the phased in applicability dates for the proposed provisions in the rule that prescribe requirements for all swine slaughter establishments.
In addition, FSIS is requesting the following data to further inform its consideration of the proposed rule. Further discussions of these requests are provided in their corresponding sections.
1. Are very small establishments that exclusively slaughter market hogs likely to convert to the NSIS?
2. How soon do establishments plan on adopting the NSIS?
3. Depending on establishment size, how many additional establishment employees would the NSIS system require?
4. What are the capital costs for establishments associated with the NSIS?
5. How long will it take establishment personnel such as a quality technician to collect, record, and analyze data required to verify that an
6. How many swine establishments have written sanitary dressing plans?
7. How many establishment employees perform sanitary dressing tasks in a swine slaughter establishment?
8. How many establishments conduct generic
9. What are the alternative frequencies at which establishments are conducting process control sampling?
10. How will changes in line speeds affect market hog prices, establishment hours of production, consumer prices, and export volumes?
The swine slaughter industry in the U.S. has evolved since the advent of the current swine inspection regulations used by the FSIS. Many of today's producers have invested in farm to table quality and food safety controls that effectively address health risks and consumer quality issues.
U.S. pork production has increased at a moderate pace as seen in Table 2. Much of the additional growth in domestic production has been used to satisfy increasing export demands, which increased 88 percent between 2005 and 2015.
In 2016, there were approximately 612 swine slaughter establishments under Federal Inspection, Table 3.
As shown below in Table 4, many establishments now exclusively slaughter market hog, a species sub class which due to technological and managerial improvements, such as improved genetics, nutrition, and medical services, generally presents fewer food safety and quality issues.
Eight of the proposed rule's provisions apply to only those establishments that voluntarily participate in the NSIS. Meeting these provisions will likely increase an establishment's labor and training costs. Additionally, only market hogs are eligible to participate in the NSIS. Due to these economic constraints discussed above, we expect that only large and small high volume establishments that exclusively slaughter market hogs would voluntarily participate in the NSIS. In 2016 there were 40 high volume establishments that exclusively slaughter market hogs, 27 large
All swine slaughter establishments would need to comply with the three mandatory provisions of the proposed rule, which are described in more detail in section
FSIS is proposing to amend 9 CFR 310.18 to require swine slaughter establishments to develop, implement, and maintain as part of their HACCP systems, written procedures to ensure that no visible fecal material, ingesta, or milk is present by the point of post-mortem inspection of swine carcasses. This requirement would address a weakness of the current inspection system, which is that verification checks performed at the end of the slaughter and chilling process encourage industry to focus its activities on post-process interventions to reduce contamination rather than prevention throughout the slaughter process. Prevention throughout the slaughter process is preferred because it promotes containing contamination close to its origin, which reduces cross contamination of multiple carcasses. The existing regulations require that establishments prevent swine carcasses contaminated with visible fecal contamination from entering the cooler. While preventing swine carcasses contaminated with visible fecal material from entering the chiller is an important safeguard for reducing the prevalence of pathogens on swine carcasses, this result generally cannot be effectively accomplished unless establishments implement appropriate measures to prevent contamination from occurring throughout the slaughter and dressing operation and implement process controls for them. Requiring establishments to keep daily written records to document the implementation and monitoring of their process control procedures is a positive step forward for public health. This ongoing documentation will allow both the establishment and FSIS to identify specific points in the production process where a lack of process control may have resulted in product contamination or insanitary conditions. This will allow the establishment to take the necessary corrective action to prevent further product contamination. FSIS seeks comment on the extent to which written sanitary dressing plans are necessary for ensuring that existing process controls are effective.
While many establishments may already have written sanitary dressing plans, due to data limitations, this analysis assumes that every establishment will need to develop a written sanitary dressing plan. This assumption will help ensure a conservative estimate. Ongoing sanitary dressing documentation will allow both the establishment and FSIS to identify specific points in the production process where a lack of process control may have resulted in product contamination or insanitary conditions.
Under this proposed rule, instead of following a prescribed microbiological testing program, each establishment would be responsible for developing and implementing its own microbiological sampling plan, which would be required to include carcass sampling at pre-evisceration and post-chill. Current microbiological standards
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.
Such procedures must be incorporated into an establishment's HACCP, sanitation SOP, or other prerequisite program. This analysis assumes an establishment will incorporate its procedures for controlling contamination in the pre-operational environment into its sanitation SOP. These procedures must include sampling and analysis of food contact surfaces in the pre-operational environment at a frequency adequate to monitor the establishment's ability to maintain sanitary conditions in the pre-operational environment.
This analysis also takes into consideration potential impacts to the Agency's budget, which is expected to be impacted by changes in staffing and training requirements. Under traditional inspection, each slaughter line requires up to 11 full time positions. Generally, these positions include both a supervisory and non-supervisory Public Health Veterinarian, PHV (OPM Veterinary Medical Science Series, 0701), a supervisory and non-supervisory consumer safety inspector, CSI (OPM Consumer Safety Inspection Series, 1862), and up to 7 Food Inspectors, FI (OPM Food Inspection Series, 1863). There are currently 418 full time equivalent units (FTE) assigned to slaughter inspection at the 22 large non-HIMP (27 large—5 HIMP) and 13 small establishments expected to convert to NSIS, Table 5. When these establishments convert to NSIS, Agency personnel will require NSIS training. Additionally, the number of Agency personnel required to inspect the slaughter process will likely change, see Agency Staffing section for details.
This analysis estimates the cost associated with the proposed rule's NSIS components. The Agency assumes that 22 large high volume and 13 small high volume establishments, that have a history of exclusively slaughtering market hogs, will adopt the NSIS portions of the rule. These 35 establishments have similar characteristics as the 5 HIMP establishments, such as volume and sub species slaughtered. Given the successful participation of the 5 HIMP establishments in the pilot program and industry's continued interest in increasing the number of establishments participating in the HIMP pilot, the benefits from adopting NSIS are expected to outweigh the costs. This analysis assumes that very small establishments that exclusively slaughter market hogs do not have a high enough production volume to justify incurring the costs of converting to the NSIS. The Agency is seeking comment on this assumption. While the 5 HIMP establishments are expected to adopt the NSIS, they have already implemented the proposed changes associated with the NSIS by their participation in the HIMP program and are not expected to incur any new or additional expenses. As such, they are not included in the group of establishments expected to incur an increase in costs associated with NSIS. This analysis excludes further consideration in the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis of the costs of submitting an attestation of work related conditions due to its small expected cost.
In the following sections, this analysis presents the costs and benefits that would be generated over a range of assumptions with respect to how much of the industry chooses to adopt the NSIS within five years. As was done with the NPIS, this analysis assumes a 5-year adoption period with roughly consistent annual adoption rates. These estimates are scaled for an illustrative calculation and assume that 35 of the 40 establishments which are likely to adopt the NSIS will incur additional costs associated with adoption. The Agency is seeking comment on this assumption. Note, the 5 HIMP establishments are not expected to incur any additional costs associated with adopting the NSIS and are therefore excluded from this portion. Also, based on actual NPIS adoption rates thus far, the assumptions presented in this analysis may be an overestimate of adoption of NSIS.
This analysis expects establishments operating under NSIS to experience an increase in labor costs. Under NSIS, establishments will be required to dedicate labor to sort and remove unfit animals before ante-mortem inspection and trim; identify defects, such as dressing defects, contamination, and pathology defects, on carcasses and parts before post-mortem inspection; ensure product is presented to Agency inspectors in an appropriate manner; identify carcasses condemned on ante-mortem inspection; denature all major portions of condemned carcasses on-site; maintain records to document the number of animals condemned on ante-mortem inspection; and notify Agency inspectors if they suspect that an animal or carcass has a reportable or foreign animal disease, while conducting sorting activities. Based on observations
Many of the 22 large and 13 small non-HIMP market hog establishments that are assumed will adopt NSIS operate multiple lines and shifts. Taking these multiple lines and shifts into consideration, the number of industry positions is expected to increase by 383. The majority of these, 369, are attributable to the large establishments (41 (number of lines) × 9),
Establishments are expected to incur costs associated with initially training employees to fill these positions, annual replacement training, and continuing education training. This analysis assumes the cost to train online sorters and carcass-inspection helpers are similar to the costs of training production employees in HACCP, which range from $274 to $823 with a midpoint average of $549 per new employee.
To account for expected turnover of establishment employees, FSIS projects that establishments will have to train approximately 452 (1,532 × 0.295) replacement employees annually, 435 at the large and 17 at the small establishments.
FSIS assumes that 1,080 (1,532 × 0.705) retained employees, 1,041 at the large and 39 at the small establishments, will require annual continuing education. This analysis assumes annual continuing education costs to be similar to annual HACCP refresher training costs, which range from $12 to $36, with a mid-point of $24.
Under the assumed adoption rate as set forth in Table 6, annualized wages and training cost to industry for staffing additional online personnel is approximately $16.45 million, applying a 3 percent discount rate over 10 years, Table 7. The majority of this cost is attributed to wages and benefits, Table 7.
As proposed, participating in NSIS does not necessitate capital improvements. As such, this analysis does not include capital expenditures. However, if establishments believe that capital expenditures would result in a benefit they may voluntarily reconfigure or update their facilities so as to fully capture all the potential production efficiencies offered through participation in NSIS. Examples of such changes include line reconfiguration, which can cost between $10,000 to $250,000,
Ollinger, Michael, Danna Moore, Ram Chandran (2004). Meat and Poultry Establishments' Food Safety Investments. USDA, Economic Research.
Under the proposed rule, establishments operating under NSIS are required to develop and maintain in their HACCP systems (HACCP plans, Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures, sanitation SOPs, or other prerequisite programs) written procedures for the segregation, identification, and disposition of animals suspected of having one of the condemnable generalized diseases or conditions listed in 9 CFR 309. This analysis assumes establishments will coordinate this work and costs with the development of 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, a mandatory component of the proposed rule. Details of these costs can be found in the sanitary dressing costs section VI.2.a.
As proposed, establishments operating under NSIS are required to collect, record, and analyze documentation to demonstrate that the products resulting from their slaughter operation meet the proposed definition of RTC pork products. While the Agency is seeking comment on this requirement, this analysis estimates the labor costs to conduct such documentation under two assumptions. First, FSIS assumes that establishments would assign the task to a quality control technician, QC, with an hourly compensation rate, which included wages, benefits, and overhead, of $68.52.
The mandatory costs of the proposed rule are expected to apply to all 612 swine slaughter establishments and begin within the first year after the rule is finalized. These costs are associated with (a) establishing and implementing written sanitary dressing plans to prevent contamination of carcasses and parts by enteric pathogens, fecal material, ingesta, and milk, throughout the entire slaughter and dressing operation; (b) modernizing process control sampling programs for microbial organisms; and (c) sampling the slaughter environment for microbiological contamination.
Under the mandatory portion of the proposed rule affecting all federally inspected establishments that slaughter swine, 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. This cost component includes: (1) Developing these procedures into their food safety system, (2) training, and (3) monitoring, recordkeeping, and verification.
FSIS assumes incorporating written sanitary dressing plans into an establishment's HACCP system will result in a one-time HACCP plan reassessment cost. According to the Research Triangle Institute's (RTI) Costs of Food Safety Investments report,
Training programs should be utilized to ensure that establishment personnel understand and can execute the sanitary dressing plan. This training includes a one-time initial training cost to the establishment, a recurring cost of training new hires due to separations, and the cost of conducting annual refresher training. This portion of the model is informed by the RTI Costs of Food Safety Investments Report.
As seen in Table 10, costs are shared across HACCP sizes, with large establishments incurring higher costs. The rate of new hires, 29.5 percent, is derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics', BLS, 2016 turnover rate for non-durable manufacturing goods.
This analysis also measures the annual monitoring, recordkeeping and verification costs associated with maintaining sanitary dressing procedures. Similar to the Modernization of Poultry Slaughter Inspection Final Rule,
Table 12 provides an overview of the one-time and recurring costs associated with requiring all establishments to develop written sanitary dressing procedures. Combined, these tasks are expected to cost the industry $1.50 million annualized, assuming a 3 percent discount rate over 10 years, Table 12.
This section reviews the expected changes in costs associated with the proposed alterations to microorganism process control verification. These costs are limited to the changes associated with removing the requirement that swine establishments test carcasses for generic
This analysis assumes establishments will incur one-time costs of conducting a process control sample plan reassessment under the proposed 9 CFR 310.25(a)(2)(i). The RTI Costs of Food Safety Investment report estimates the costs of reassessing a microbiological sampling plan. For large establishments, these costs include labor, consultant fees, and travel expenses, which combined range from $27,320 to $81,960, with a midpoint of $54,640 per establishment. Costs to small and very small establishments are limited to labor expenses and range from $122 to $365, with a midpoint of $243 per establishment.
Current regulation prescribes that each slaughter facility will test for generic
This analysis assumes that, if permitted to choose a microbiological test to ensure process control, establishments would select the single best test that demonstrates process control at their establishment. Under these assumptions, establishments that currently test for generic
Calculating the cost reductions is a function of estimating the testing rate and testing costs. This analysis assumes all large and small high volume establishments conduct 1 test, every 1,000 carcasses, and all small low volume and very small establishments conduct 13 tests annually.
The proposed rule would require large and small high volume establishments to take samples at pre-evisceration and post-chill, which would increase the number of samples taken from 1 sample per 1,000 carcasses to 2 samples per 1,000 carcasses for large and small high volume establishments. The proposed rule does not require small low volume and very small establishments to increase their sampling rates. Under the proposed regulations, large establishments annual process control sampling costs are expected to increase by roughly $2.34 million, which is roughly $83,639 per establishment ($2.34 million/28), Table 15. Small high volume establishments annual process control sampling costs are expected to increase by roughly $0.29 million, which is roughly $5,740 ($0.29 million/51) per establishment, Table 15.
This analysis takes into consideration the increase in record keeping costs associated with an increase in the sampling rate from 1 to 2 samples per 1,000 head. According to PHIS data, the average large establishment slaughters approximately 3.77 million swine per year. As such, this analysis estimates that a large establishment currently takes approximately 3,774 samples annually (3,774,223/1,000). The average small high volume swine establishment slaughters 0.23 million swine per year and requires approximately 229 samples (228,784/1,000) annually. Assuming it takes 2.5 minutes to record the results of each sample, the average large establishment currently requires 9,435 minutes (2.5 * 3,774) per year and the average small high volume establishment currently requires 573 minutes (2.5 * 229) per year. Requiring establishments to increase their sampling rates from 1 to 2 samples per 1,000 head would increase the average large establishment's annual number of samples to 7,548 samples annually (3,774,223/1,000 *2), which would require approximately 18,870 minutes (2.5 * 7,548) annually. The same requirement would increase a small high volume establishment's annual sampling to 458 (228,784/1,000 * 2), which would require approximately 1,145 minutes (2.5 * 458) annually. As such, the expected additional time required for recordkeeping is approximately 9,435 minutes (18,870–9,435) for large establishments and 572 minutes (1,145–573) for small high volume establishments. Assuming a quality control technician with a compensation rate of $68.52 per hour
The combined annualized sampling and recordkeeping cost to all large and small high volume establishments is roughly $2.97 million, applying a 3 percent discount rate over 10 years. Large establishments are expected to incur the majority of this cost.
Overall, the changes in sampling requirements under the proposed rule are expected to reduce industry wide sampling costs by about $0.76 million annualized over 10 years, applying a 3 percent discount rate, Table 16. However, only the 454 establishments that currently conduct multiple types of microbiological tests are expected to experience a reduction in cost. The remaining establishments, roughly 158 small and very small establishments, are expected to incur a portion of the one-time costs associated with plan reassessment, Table 16. Cost increases associated with testing and recordkeeping will be exclusively borne by large and small high volume establishments.
As proposed, all swine slaughter establishments will be required to control for enteric pathogen contamination in the pre-operational environment. Such controls will have to be included in an establishment's HACCP system, requiring a plan reassessment. This analysis assumes establishments will coordinate this work with the HACCP plan reassessment required by the development of written sanitary dressing procedures. As such the cost of incorporating pre-operational environment sampling plans into an establishment's HACCP system is included in the reassessment costs associated with written sanitary dressing procedures.
While establishments will set sampling frequency so as to ensure effective control, this analysis assumes each large establishment will take 4 samples per 30 days of operation per line, while each small high volume establishment will take 2 samples per 30 days of operation per line, and small low volume and very small establishments will take 1 sample per 30 days of operation per line.
To ensure a conservative estimate this analysis assumes establishments will test for
The total annualized value of all costs to industry, under the assumed five year adoption rate as shown in Table 6, is roughly $17.84 million, assuming a 10 year annualization and a 3 percent discount rate, Table 19. Large establishments that voluntarily switch to the NSIS incur the majority of costs. For example, the recurring labor costs associated with the NSIS is the single largest recurring cost to industry and is mostly incurred by large establishments. It should be noted that the five HIMP pilot establishments have already incurred these costs, suggesting for those five establishments, the benefits of NSIS outweigh the costs. It also suggests that the benefits of adopting NSIS outweigh the costs for other establishments as well. Training staff accounts for the bulk of the costs associated with written sanitary dressing procedures. Sampling costs are expected to decrease for those establishments that currently conduct microbiological tests in addition to generic
Switching existing FSIS inspection program personnel (IPP) activities toward more offline verification activities (
Stage 1 of the risk assessment consists of a multiple regression analysis to identify the relationships between establishment characteristics (including HIMP status) and carcass contamination prevalence. Stage 2 of the risk assessment consists of multiple scenario models in which combinations of plausible changes to inspection procedures are inserted into equations created using the coefficients computed in Stage 1. These scenarios produce estimates of change in carcass contamination prevalence under the inspection procedures of NSIS.
Changes in expected numbers of
The market hog
More specifically, CDC applies 14 empirical, population-adjusted, and Pert uncertainty distributions multiplicatively modeled as Monte Carlo distributions with repeated sampling and Bayesian characteristics to the data collected at their surveillance sites. CDC states that the illness estimates are robust but likely underestimates due to extrapolation from surveillance and outbreak data with underreporting not captured in the CDC uncertainty estimates based ultimately on laboratory confirmed cases. CDC's modeling approach used to estimate total uncertainty of illnesses is designed to capture multiple sources of uncertainty that were not explicitly modeled—that is, the uncertainty in CDC illness estimates captures components of consumer behavior, cross contamination and
The prevalence estimates are modeled with data variability and robust uncertainty components taken from sampling data and model parameter estimates. The variability and uncertainty in the market hog proportion of illnesses is modeled from FSIS market hog slaughter data and Bayesian uncertainty. As demonstrated in the 2010–2011 Market Hog Baseline Study, the market hog slaughter process resulted in 2,390,482 carcasses produced per year and a weighted
The market hog risk assessment estimates that if the 35 establishments expected to covert to the NSIS over 5 years do so, the number of human illness attributed to products derived from market hogs could reduce by an average of 2,533
The proposed regulation is expected to reduce the regulatory burden on establishments by shifting from prescriptive to performance based regulation. Specifically, the proposed rule amends requirements related to slaughter line speeds,
Assuming establishments increase their line speeds by 12.49 percent and have a packer margin of $4.10 per head, an average large establishment's surplus could increase by approximately $2.04 million, while an average small high volume establishment's surplus could increase by $0.18 million, all else being equal. Combined, such an increase in efficiency at all 35 establishments would increase producer surplus by roughly $47.33 million
The five HIMP establishments have demonstrated that establishments operating under the NSIS are able to increase their compliance with sanitation SOPs and HACCP regulations, lower their level of non-food safety defects, achieve equivalent or better
Additionally, NSIS inspection increases the Agency's ability to conduct more process and product verification and increase monitoring of humane handling procedures, which is expected to improve animal welfare. FSIS inspectors devoted approximately 5.33 hours per shift to verifying humane handling activities for the HATS categories in HIMP market hog establishments compared to approximately 4.29 hours per shift in the 21 non-HIMP market hog comparison establishments.
Under the proposed rule, the Agency would shift Agency resources from online to offline activities. This analysis estimates such a shift will reduce labor expenses by approximately $6.67 million annually, Table 22. However, Agency personnel at NSIS establishments will require additional training, the annualized cost of which is estimated to be approximately $0.30 million. Both of these annualized estimates apply a 3 percent discount rate over 10 years. Details of these costs are provided below.
The following section discusses the impact on the Agency's budget due to reassignment of the inspection staff. As discussed in section F of this document, under traditional inspection, a single slaughter line at a large establishment requires up to 11 FTEs and up to 2 FTEs at a small market hog establishment. Under NSIS, a single slaughter line at a large establishment is expected to require 6 FTEs, while a small market hog establishment is expected to require 3 FTEs. Large establishments with two slaughter lines are expected to require 10 FTEs, while a small market hog establishment with 2 slaughter lines is expected to require 4 FTEs.
This analysis considers likely staffing changes at the 22 large and 13 small establishments which are expected to convert to NSIS over a course of five years. Combined, these establishments operate 46 shifts and 55 lines.
Since 2008, the Agency has annually lost, through attrition, 270 food inspectors on average. See Table 23 for details. The Agency plans to utilize all personnel made available as a result of conversion to NSIS to fill these vacant positions.
If all 22 large and 13 small market hog establishments convert to NSIS over the course of five years, as set forth in Table 6, the Agency expects to train 266 personnel (218 CSIs and 48 PHVs), with pay grades ranging from GS–8 to GS–13, on NSIS methods. The majority of these personnel, 228, are associated with 22 large establishments, while the remaining 38 are associated with 13 small establishments, Table 24. The associated one-time cost of such training includes labor and travel expenses associated with the employees receiving training, as well as temporary replacement labor costs required to fulfill the work that would have been completed by the employees receiving training. Based on the HIMP program, this analysis assumes NSIS methods training will take 3 days and replacement labor will be equivalent to GS–13 step 5. Under these assumptions, the total one-time cost of NSIS training is approximately $0.64 million ($550,942 for all large establishments and $81,697 for all small establishments), Table 24. This one-time cost equals approximately $0.07 million if it were annualized over 10 years under a 3 percent discount rate, Table 24.
As proposed, slaughter line inspectors at a NSIS establishment will work both on and off the slaughter line. As such, every inspection position will fall under the CSI position classification. To fill the increase in demand for CSIs, the Agency plans to train existing FIs. Training includes a four-week meat inspector course and a one-day computer familiarization course. If all 22 large establishments convert to NSIS, the Agency will need an additional 82 CSIs. Likewise, if all 13 small market hog establishments convert, the Agency will need an additional 16 CSIs. Converting a FI into a CSI may result in a grade increase, the cost of which has been included in the Agency Staffing section above. The combined one-time cost for converting FIs into CSIs is roughly $2.16 million, Table 25. Nearly half of this cost stems from the need for replacement labor. Again, under the proposed five year adoption rate, as set forth in Table 6, and under a 3 percent discount rate the annualized costs is approximately $0.23 million, Table 25.
The Agency's budget is expected to be impacted both by changes to personnel and training requirements. First, there will be a reduced need for Agency personnel to inspect a slaughter line operating under NSIS. If all 22 large and 13 small establishments convert to NSIS over the course of five years, the Agency would require approximately 147 fewer FTEs to inspect the 55
With the expected impact on the Agency's budget and industry's revenue included, and assuming all large and small exclusively market hog establishments convert to NSIS (5 HIMP, 22 large, and 13 Small high volume), the rule is anticipated to have a net benefit of approximately $31.77 million a year, annualized over 10 years assuming a 3 percent discount rate, Table 27. The majority of the costs are experienced by the 35 non-HIMP establishments expected to voluntarily switch to the NSIS in the form of increased labor needs.
Given the lack of data with which to make cost-benefit comparisons across the industry, Table 28 provides a range of possible adoption scenarios and their corresponding costs and benefits. Under scenario A, only the 5 HIMP establishments adopt the NSIS. Because these 5 establishments are already operating under NSIS practices, there would not be any additional voluntary costs or benefits associated with these 5 establishments adopting the NSIS. However, all 612 establishments would incur costs associated with the proposed rule's mandatory components. As such, scenario A has a net cost. Scenario B assesses the net cost and benefits of just 6 establishments adopting the NSIS (5 HIMP and 1 large). This scenario reveals that the rule is net beneficial if just 1 large establishment adopts the NSIS in addition to the 5 HIMP establishments. Scenarios C, D, and E measure the net costs and benefits of 50, 75, and 100 percent of the 40 establishments converting to the NSIS, respectively. Each of these scenarios are net beneficial.
FSIS considered maintaining the current inspection system for all 612 swine slaughter establishments. The Agency rejected this alternative because it would forgo the benefits provided by NSIS. These benefits include the establishment's ability to innovate and develop process controls which increase foodborne hazard detection and more efficiently use all of their resources. Taking no action would also forgo potential industrial efficiency increases. Further, no action would result in the Agency continuing to dedicate resources to food quality issues, at the expense of increasing offline activities benefitting food safety. Last, taking no action would also forgo potential health benefits identified under the proposed rule.
FSIS considered limiting the proposed rule to only include the mandatory sections. Under such a scenario quantified benefits are limited to an estimated $0.76 million reduction in process control sampling costs. This cost reduction is expected to be off-set by a $1.58 million increase in other industry costs associated with requiring written sanitary dressing plans and environmental sampling. In comparison to the baseline, this scenario has a net cost of roughly $0.82 million. Additionally, under such a scenario, the Agency's inspection staff would not be reassigned and the Agency would continue to require the same number of inspectors. As such, the Agency's labor costs would not decrease by the expected $6.67 million. However, because FIs will not be converted into CSIs nor will inspectors require additional training, the Agency would not incur the corresponding $0.30 million in training costs ($0.07 for NSIS training plus $0.23 in CSI training). As mentioned earlier, simultaneously increasing unscheduled and scheduled inspection procedures and decreasing scheduled but not performed procedures accrues most of the public health benefits. The unscheduled and scheduled tasks are currently not performed as a result of lack of offline personnel. In comparison to the proposed rule, this alternative would eliminate most of the public health benefits associated with the rule, which are estimated at $7.09 million annually. Additionally, line speed restrictions would remain in place leading to an estimated loss of over $36.14 million in industrial efficiency gains. FSIS has rejected this alternative in light of its expected net cost as compared to the baseline as well as the decrease in net benefits as compared to the proposed rule.
Applying a 3 percent discount rate over 10 years the costs associated with the proposed rule include $16.62 million in additional industry labor costs, $1.97 million in other industry costs including costs associated with meeting ready to cook standards, written sanitary dressing plans, and environmental sampling, and $0.3 million in Agency training costs. The quantified health benefits of the proposed rule are limited to reductions in
FSIS considered requiring all federally inspected swine slaughter establishments to convert to NSIS. This would expand NSIS from the 5 HIMP, 27 large, and 13 small high volume establishments expected to convert under the proposed rule to include 572 additional establishments. This expansion would include low volume establishments that slaughter all types of swine as well as establishments that slaughter a mix of species.
In comparison to the baseline, the benefits of this alternative potentially include more than $7.09 million in averted illnesses, a $36.14 million increase in industrial efficiency, $0.76 million in industrial savings associated with process control sampling requirements, and $2.72 million in Agency labor cost savings, assuming a 3 percent discount rate over 10 years. The production at these 572 additional establishments represents less than 8 percent of total production and as such is not expected to return substantial reductions in contamination prevalence or illnesses and falls outside of the current risk assessment. In particular, the uncertainty around measurement and model parameters that is already included in the health benefit calculations for the proposed rule likely produce wide enough estimates that the impact of adopting the NSIS in all establishments would have an effect within the uncertainty bounds. The increase in industrial efficiency remains similar to that of the proposed rule because these additional establishments are generally less automated and maintain slower line speeds to address higher rates of quality defects associated with non-market hogs. While compared to the baseline, this alternative reduces Agency labor costs; it would result in additional promotions reducing the benefit in comparison to the proposed rule.
In comparison to the baseline, the potential costs associated with this alternative include a $25.90 million increase in industrial labor, a $3.30 million increase in other industry costs which include costs associated with ready to cook standards, written sanitary dressing plans, and environmental sampling, and roughly $0.68 million in Agency training costs. In comparison to the proposed rule, the additional increases in costs to industry predominately fall on small and very small business. While this alternative has a net benefit of $16.83 million, assuming a 3 percent discount rate over 10 years, the Agency rejects it because its net benefit is less than the proposed rule.
The FSIS Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities in the United States, as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The proposed rule's mandatory requirements would affect approximately 584 small entities, 105 small and 479 very small. First, the mandatory requirements include that all small and very small establishments create written sanitary dressing plans with cost components of development of the plan, training of employees, and recordkeeping, at an annualized cost of $1,869 per plant, applying a 3 percent discount rate over 10 years. Second, the mandatory proposed changes to process control sampling requirements are expected to decrease small establishments' sampling costs by roughly $1,296 per establishment annually, applying a 3 percent discount rate over 10 years. In addition to this sampling cost reduction, the Agency would allow small and very small establishments to modify their sampling plans to collect samples less frequently once they have collected 13 consecutive weekly samples and have demonstrated that they are effectively maintaining process control. FSIS is also proposing to allow establishments to develop sampling plans that are more tailored to their specific establishment, and thus more effective in monitoring their specific process control than the current generic
Consistent with E.O. 13771 (82
FSIS and USDA are committed to achieving the purposes of the E-Government Act (44 U.S.C. 3601, et. seq.) by, among other things, promoting the use of the internet and other information technologies and providing increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under this rule: (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) no administrative proceedings will be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” E.O. 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
FSIS has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, FSIS will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA must, 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 on-line 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).
Each USDA agency is required to comply with 7 CFR part 1b of the Departmental regulations, which supplements the National Environmental Policy Act regulations published by the Council on Environmental Quality. Under these regulations, actions of certain USDA agencies and agency units are categorically excluded from the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) unless the agency head determines that an action may have a significant environmental effect (7 CFR 1b.4 (b)). FSIS is among the agencies categorically excluded from the preparation of an EA or EIS (7 CFR 1b.4 (b)(6)).
Establishments that operate under the proposed NSIS are expected to be able to slaughter and process swine more efficiently than is possible under current regulations, leading to a reduction in production costs. FSIS expects that consumer demand for pork products will determine the number of swine slaughtered rather than production costs. Because of the efficiencies in the NSIS, the price of pork products may decrease. The predicted price reduction could lead to a slight increase in demand for pork products. With the slight increase in pork product sales, some establishments may choose to increase the number of swine slaughtered, which could result in an increase in the number of condemned carcasses and parts that must be disposed of. However, because the anticipated change in sales is very small, the Agency has determined that the change in the number of swine slaughtered, as well as the number of condemned carcasses and parts to be disposed of, will be very small and thus will not have a significant individual or cumulative effect on the human environment. Therefore, this regulatory action is appropriately subject to the categorical exclusion from the preparation of an EA or EIS provided under 7 CFR 1b.4(b)(6) of the USDA regulations.
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the information collection or recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB.
The requirement that swine slaughter establishments have written procedures in their HACCP systems is already covered under an approved information collection system, Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Systems (OMB control number 0583–0103). Therefore, this requirement of this proposed rule would create no new burden on establishments.
The proposed requirement that swine slaughter establishments monitor their systems through microbial testing and recordkeeping would create a new information collection burden. For each sample on which a microbiological test is conducted, there are two “responses” for the establishment: One response for the actual collecting of the sample and sending it to the laboratory for analysis, and the other for recording the sample result. Under the proposed rule, large establishments would test and record microbiological results for enteric pathogens, at both pre-evisceration and post-chill, 13 times a day; small high-volume establishments, one-time a day; and small low-volume and very small establishments, 13 times a year. FSIS estimates that large establishments would test and record microbial results for the pre-operational environment weekly; small establishments, biweekly; small low-volume and very small establishments, monthly.
FSIS is also proposing a new regulation that would create a new information collection burden, in that it would require that market hog slaughter establishments operating under NSIS submit on an annual basis an attestation to the management member of the local FSIS circuit safety committee stating that it maintains a program to monitor and document any work-related conditions of establishment workers. This is a new recordkeeping requirement that FSIS has submitted to OMB for approval.
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; (202) 720–5627.
Comments may be sent to both Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, at the address provided above, and the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20253. To be most effective, comments should be sent within 60 days of the publication date of this proposed rule. All 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,
Meat inspection.
Animal diseases, meat inspection, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Animal diseases, meat inspection.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, FSIS is proposing to amend 9 CFR Chapter III as follows:
7 U.S.C. 138–138i, 450, 1901–1906; 21 U.S.C. 601–695; 7 CFR 2.7, 2.18, 2.53.
21 U.S.C. 601–695; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.
(a) The establishment must conduct market hog sorting activities before the animals are presented for ante-mortem inspection. Market hogs exhibiting signs of moribundity, central nervous system disorders, or pyrexia must be disposed of according to paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) The establishment must develop, implement, and maintain written procedures to ensure that market hogs exhibiting signs of moribundity, central nervous system disorders, or pyrexia do not enter the official establishment to be slaughtered. The establishment must incorporate these procedures into its HACCP plan, or sanitation SOP, or other prerequisite program.
(c) The establishment must identify carcasses of livestock that establishment employees have sorted and removed from slaughter or that FSIS inspectors have condemned on ante-mortem inspection with a unique tag, tattoo, or similar device. The establishment must immediately denature all major portions of the carcass on-site and dispose of the carcass according to 9 CFR part 314.3.
(d) The establishment must maintain records to document the number of animals disposed of per day because they were removed from slaughter by establishment sorters before ante-mortem inspection by FSIS inspectors. These records are subject to review and evaluation by FSIS personnel.
(e) The establishment must immediately notify FSIS inspectors if the establishment has reason to believe that market hogs may have a notifiable animal disease. Notifiable animal diseases are designated by World Animal Health Organization.
21 U.S.C. 601–695; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.
(b) * * *
(3)
(i) The NSIS may be used for market hogs if the official establishment requests to use it and meets or agrees to meet the requirements in 9 CFR 309.19 and 9 CFR 310.26. The Administrator may permit establishments that slaughter classes of swine other than market hogs to use NSIS under a waiver from the provisions of the regulations as provided by 9 CFR 303.1(h). The Administrator also may permit establishments that slaughter market hogs and other classes of swine to slaughter market hogs under NSIS and slaughter other classes of swine under traditional inspection.
(ii) Traditional inspection shall be used for swine when NSIS is not used. The following inspection staffing standards are applicable to swine slaughter configurations operating under traditional inspection when NSIS is not used. The inspection standards for all slaughter lines are based upon the observation rather than palpation, at the viscera inspection station, of the spleen, liver, heart, lungs, and mediastinal lymph nodes. In addition, for one- and two-inspector lines under traditional inspection, the standards are based upon the distance walked (in feet) by the inspector between work stations; and for three or more inspector slaughter lines, upon the use of a mirror, as described in § 307.2(m)(6) of this chapter, at the carcass inspection station. Although not required in a one- or two-inspector slaughter configuration, except in certain cases as determined by the inspection service, if a mirror is used, it must comply with the requirements of § 307.2(m)(6).
(c)
(1)
(i) Very small establishments are establishments with fewer than 10 employees or annual sales of less than $2.5 million.
(ii) Very low volume establishments annually slaughter no more than 20,000 swine, or a combination of swine and other livestock not exceeding 6,000 cattle and 20,000 total of all livestock.
(iii) An establishment may substitute alternative sampling locations if:
(A) The establishment has support to demonstrate the alternative sampling locations are able to provide a definite improvement in monitoring process control than at pre-evisceration and post-chill; and
(B) FSIS does not determine, and notify the establishment in writing, that the alternative sampling locations are inadequate to verify the effectiveness of the establishment's process controls for enteric pathogens.
(2)
(i) Establishments, except for very small and very low volume establishments as defined in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section, must collect and analyze samples at a frequency of once per 1,000 carcasses, but a minimum of once during each week of operation.
(ii) Very small and very low volume establishments as defined in paragraph (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section must collect and analyze samples at least once during each week of operation starting June 1 of every year. If, after consecutively collecting 13 weekly samples, very small and very low volume establishments can demonstrate that they are effectively maintaining process control, they may modify their sampling plans.
(iii) An establishment may substitute an alternative frequency if:
(A) The alternative is an integral part of the establishment's verification procedures for its HACCP plan; and
(B) FSIS does not determine, and notify the establishment in writing, that the alternative frequency is inadequate to verify the effectiveness of the establishment's process controls for enteric pathogens.
(iv) Establishments must sample at a frequency that is adequate to monitor their ability to maintain process control for enteric pathogens. Establishments must maintain accurate records of all test results and retain these records as provided in paragraph (e) of this section.
(d)
(e)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) The establishment must maintain records to document the number of animals disposed of per day by plant sorters or condemned per day by FSIS inspectors upon post-mortem inspection. These records are subject to review and evaluation by FSIS personnel.
Each establishment that participates in the New Swine Slaughter Inspection System (NSIS) must submit on an annual basis an attestation to the management member of the local FSIS circuit safety committee stating that it maintains a program to monitor and document any work-related conditions of establishment workers, and that the program includes the following elements:
(a) Policies to encourage early reporting of symptoms of injuries and illnesses, and assurance that it has no policies or programs in place that would discourage the reporting of injuries and illnesses.
(b) Notification to employees of the nature and early symptoms of occupational illnesses and injuries, in a manner and language that workers can understand, including by posting in a conspicuous place or places where notices to employees are customarily posted, a copy of the FSIS/OSHA poster encouraging reporting and describing reportable signs and symptoms.
(c) Monitoring, on a regular and routine basis, injury and illness logs, as well as nurse or medical office logs, workers' compensation data, and any other injury or illness information available.
Should a court of competent jurisdiction hold any provision of 9 CFR 310.27 to be invalid, such action will not affect any other provision of 9 CFR parts 309 or 310.
Legal Services Corporation.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This proposed rulemaking would remove the Legal Services Corporation's (LSC) regulation on state advisory councils. LSC believes this action is appropriate because the state advisory councils are no longer active and their oversight functions have been replaced adequately by other offices and processes established by Congress or LSC. Executive Orders 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” and 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” direct agencies to review their existing regulations and repeal or revise any that are obsolete or unnecessarily burdensome. Although LSC is not an agency of the Federal government subject to either executive order, LSC regularly reviews its regulations and has determined that this regulation can be eliminated.
Comments must be received by March 5, 2018.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Stefanie K. Davis, Assistant General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20007; (202) 295–1563 (phone), (202) 337–6519 (fax), or
Section 1004(f) of the Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974 required that “within six months after the first meeting of the Board, the Board request the Governor of each State to appoint a nine-member advisory council for each state.” 42 U.S.C. 2996c(f). If ninety days elapsed without the Governor's appointing the advisory council, then “the Board [was] authorized to appoint such a council.”
The state advisory councils' primary duty was to notify LSC of any “apparent violation” by a recipient. 45 CFR 1603.5. LSC defined “apparent violation” as “a complaint or other written communication alleging facts which, if established, constitute a violation of the [LSC] Act, or any applicable rules, regulations or guidelines promulgated pursuant to the Act.”
LSC met the requirements of section 1004(f) of the LSC Act by requesting state governors to appoint state advisory councils within the period established by the Act and part 1603. In 1976, 46 state advisory councils were in existence, but later reports reflect that many of these councils rarely, if ever, met. Letter from Suzanne B. Glasow, Senior Counsel for Operations and Regulations, Office of General Counsel, to Mike Sims, Office of Rep. Pete Laney at 1 (Sept. 19, 1989). By 1983, only six state advisory councils appeared to be operational and by 1989, only Colorado and Indiana had functioning state advisory councils.
In 2014, LSC's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) recommended that LSC either ensure that the state advisory councils are established and operational or rescind part 1603. LSC proposes to rescind part 1603 for four reasons: (1) LSC complied with the requirements of section 1004(f) of the LSC Act by requesting state governors to appoint state advisory councils within the period established by the Act and part 1603; (2) section 1004(f) of the LSC Act and part 1603 provide LSC with discretion to exercise or not exercise the option to appoint state councils; (3) to LSC's knowledge, there are no functioning state advisory councils; and (4) there are now numerous oversight mechanisms that fulfill the function of the state advisory councils.
At its January 2015 meeting, the Operations and Regulations Committee (Committee) of LSC's Board of Directors (Board) recommended including the repeal of part 1603 on LSC's regulatory agenda, but made the initiative a low priority.
On January 30, 2017, the President signed Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” Through this Executive order, the President directed the heads of executive departments and agencies to identify at least two prior regulations to be repealed for each new regulation issued. By operation of the LSC Act, LSC is not an executive department or agency subject to the Executive order. 42 U.S.C. 2996d(e). Consistent with the intent of the Executive order to reduce unnecessary regulations, however, LSC prioritized the repeal of part 1603.
Prior to initiating rulemaking, LSC conducted an analysis of the oversight mechanisms that have developed since the LSC Act was passed in 1974. LSC determined that the state advisory councils' oversight functions have been replaced adequately by other offices and processes established by Congress or LSC since 1974. Complainants not only have more audiences—including LSC's OIG, LSC's Office of Compliance and Enforcement (OCE), and state bodies—for their complaints, but they also have more vehicles for filing complaints, including by phone, postal mail, email, online, and through grantee grievance procedures. Furthermore, the OIG, OCE, and state bodies go beyond the state advisory committees' narrow role of collecting alleged violations by also investigating the allegations and using various tools to ensure grantee compliance. LSC's analysis of these existing oversight mechanisms is covered in greater detail in the Justification Memorandum for Rulemaking to Rescind 45 CFR part 1603—State Advisory Councils,
On April 23, 2017, the Committee approved Management's proposed 2017–2018 rulemaking agenda, which included rescinding 45 CFR part 1603 as a priority rulemaking item. On October 15, 2017, the Committee voted to recommend that the Board authorize LSC to begin rulemaking on part 1603. On October 17, 2017, the Board authorized LSC to begin rulemaking. On January 21, 2018, the Committee voted to recommend that the Board authorize publication of this NPRM. On January 23, 2018, the Board authorized publication of the NPRM with a 30-day comment period.
LSC proposes to remove part 1603. In an NPRM published elsewhere in this
Advisory committees; Legal services.
Legal Services Corporation.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) proposes to create a rule governing subpoenas and requests for LSC documents and testimony by non-federal litigants in cases in which LSC is not a party. Currently, LSC has no internal or external procedures in place to process such requests. This rule provides the public with guidance on where to send requests and establishes procedures by which those requests will be processed.
Comments must be received by March 5, 2018.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Stefanie K. Davis, Assistant General Counsel, 202–295–1563,
LSC proposes to create a new regulation, known as a
Between 2013 and 2017, LSC and its Office of the Inspector General (OIG) received several subpoenas and requests for testimony or documents, but did not have internal or external guidance in place regarding such requests. At the OIG's recommendation, LSC added rulemaking on requests for documents and testimony to its rulemaking agenda in 2015. On October 15, 2017, the Operations and Regulations Committee (Committee) of LSC's Board of Directors (Board) voted to recommend that the Board authorize rulemaking on part 1603. On October 17, 2017, the Board authorized LSC to begin rulemaking.
Regulatory action is justified for four reasons. First, a
On January 21, 2018, the Committee voted to recommend that the Board approve this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for publication. On January 23, 2018, the Board accepted the Committee's recommendation and voted to approve publication of this NPRM with a 30-day comment period.
In an NPRM published elsewhere in this issue of the
LSC proposes to prescribe which proceedings and employees will be governed by the rule. All LSC employees, including former employees, members of the Board of Directors, and employees of the OIG, are governed by this rule concerning information acquired during the performance of official duties or because of such person's official capacity with LSC. This rule applies to all non-federal litigants in civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings to which LSC is not a party.
Congress created LSC through the Legal Services Corporation Act, 42 U.S.C. 2996
LSC proposes to define the following terms.
LSC proposes to prohibit current and former employees from providing documents or testimony in response to requests covered by this rule without prior authorization from the General Counsel or OIG Legal Counsel.
LSC proposes to require parties to submit requests for testimony from LSC employees to its General Counsel as
Requests must state the nature of the requested testimony, why the information sought is unavailable by any other means, and the reasons why providing the testimony would further LSC's interests. This information will assist the General Counsel and the OIG Legal Counsel in their decision making.
LSC proposes to prohibit its employees from serving as expert witnesses without authorization from the General Counsel or OIG Legal Counsel, as appropriate. This section prevents public resources from being used for private litigation. Even if employees and LSC are compensated, time spent preparing and delivering testimony is time diverted from support of LSC's mission.
LSC proposes procedures for its employees to follow if they are personally served with subpoenas requesting information acquired in the course of performing official duties or because of their official capacity. This provision has the dual benefits of providing guidance for subpoenaed employees and instructing members of the public how to request the information they seek.
Consistent with Federal agencies'
LSC proposes to certify, upon request, the authenticity of records to be disclosed. Such a service does not generally use significant resources.
LSC proposes this section to make clear that no private rights arise from this rule.
Administrative practice and procedure; Archives and records; Courts.
42 U.S.C. 2996g(e).
(a) This part sets forth rules to be followed when a litigant requests an employee of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), including LSC's Office of the Inspector General (OIG), to provide testimony in a deposition, trial, or other similar proceeding concerning information acquired in the course of performing official duties or because of such person's official capacity with LSC. This part also sets forth procedures for the handling of subpoenas for documents and other requests for documents in the possession of LSC or the OIG, and for the processing of requests for certification of copies of documents.
(b) It is LSC's policy to provide information, data, and records to non-federal litigants to the same extent and in the same manner that they are made available to the public. When subject to the jurisdiction of a court or other tribunal presiding over litigation between non-federal parties, LSC will follow all applicable procedural and substantive rules relating to the production of information, data, and records by a non-party. The availability of LSC employees to testify in litigation not involving federal parties is governed by LSC's policy to maintain strict impartiality with respect to private litigants and to minimize the disruption of official duties.
(c) This part applies to state, local, and tribal judicial, administrative, and legislative proceedings, and to federal judicial and administrative proceedings.
(d) This part does not apply to:
(1) Any civil or criminal proceedings to which LSC is a party.
(2) Congressional requests or subpoenas for testimony or documents.
(3) Consultative services and technical assistance provided by LSC in carrying out its normal program activities.
(4) Employees serving as expert witnesses in connection with professional and consultative services as approved outside activities. In cases where employees are providing such outside services, they must state for the record that the testimony represents their own views and does not necessarily represent the official position of LSC.
(5) Employees making appearances in their private capacity in legal or administrative proceedings that do not relate to LSC, such as cases arising out of traffic accidents, crimes, domestic relations, etc., and not involving professional and consultative services.
(6) Any civil or criminal proceedings in State court brought on behalf of LSC.
(7) Any criminal proceeding brought as a result of a referral for prosecution by the OIG or by any other Inspector General in connection with a case worked jointly with the OIG.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
In any proceedings to which this part applies, no employee may provide testimony or produce documents concerning information acquired in the course of performing official duties or because of the person's official relationship with LSC unless authorized by the General Counsel or the OIG Legal Counsel pursuant to this part based on his determination that compliance with the request would promote LSC's objectives.
(a) All requests for testimony by an employee in his or her official capacity and not subject to the exceptions set forth in § 1603.1(d) of this part must be in writing and addressed to the General Counsel.
(b) All requests for testimony by an employee of the OIG must be in writing and addressed to the OIG Legal Counsel.
(c) Requests must state the nature of the requested testimony, why the information sought is unavailable by any other means, and the reasons why the testimony would be in the interest of LSC.
No employee shall serve as an expert witness in any proceeding described in § 1603.1(c) or before a court or agency of the United States unless the General Counsel or the OIG Legal Counsel authorizes the employee's participation.
(a) Whenever a subpoena commanding the production of any LSC record has been served upon an employee, the employee shall refer the subpoena to the General Counsel or the OIG Legal Counsel, as appropriate. The General Counsel or the OIG Legal Counsel shall determine whether the subpoena is legally sufficient, whether the subpoena was properly served, and whether the issuing court or other tribunal has jurisdiction over LSC. If the General Counsel or the OIG Legal Counsel determines that the subpoena satisfies all three factors, LSC shall comply with the terms of the subpoena unless LSC takes affirmative action to modify or quash the subpoena in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (c).
(b) If a subpoena commanding the production of any record served upon an employee is determined by the General Counsel or the OIG Legal Counsel to be legally insufficient, improperly served, or from a tribunal not having jurisdiction, LSC shall deem the subpoena a request for records under the Freedom of Information Act. LSC shall handle the subpoena pursuant to the rules governing public disclosure established in 45 CFR part 1602.
(c) If the General Counsel or the OIG Legal Counsel denies approval to comply with a subpoena for testimony or has not acted by the return date, the employee will be directed to appear at the stated time and place, unless advised by the General Counsel or the OIG Legal Counsel that responding to the subpoena would be inappropriate. The employee will be directed to produce a copy of these regulations and respectfully decline to testify or produce any documents on the basis of these regulations.
Upon request, LSC will certify the authenticity of copies of records that are to be disclosed. The requesting party will be responsible for reasonable fees for copying and certification.
This part is intended only to provide a process for receipt and processing of private litigants' requests for LSC documents and testimony. It does not, and may not be relied upon, to create a right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against LSC.