The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is reopening the public comment period for this proposed rule, which was published on February 1, 2019. FNS believes that affected parties need to be informed as soon as possible of the extension and its length.

Table of Contents I. Introduction and Summary of the Proposal A. Background on Capital Requirements B. Background on TLAC and LTD Requirements C. 2015 Proposal and General Summary of Comments D. Overview and Scope of Application of the Proposal II. Proposed Regulatory Capital Treatment for Advanced Approaches Banking Organizations' Investments in Covered Debt Instruments A. Amendments to Definitions B. Investments in Covered Banking Organization's Own Covered Debt Instruments and Reciprocal Cross Holdings C. Significant and Non-Significant Investments in Covered Debt Instruments D. Corresponding Deduction Approach E. Net Long Position III. Technical Amendment and Additional Requests for Comment IV. Proposed Changes to Regulatory Reporting A. Deductions from Tier 2 Capital Related to Investments in Covered Debt Instruments and Excluded Covered Debt Instruments B. Public Disclosure of LTD and TLAC by Covered BHCs and Covered IHCs V. Regulatory Analyses A. Paperwork Reduction Act B. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis C. Plain Language D. OCC Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Determination E. Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 I. Introduction and Summary of the Proposal A. Background on Capital Requirements

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) (collectively, the agencies) impose minimum capital requirements on banking organizations. 1 These requirements include minimum risk-based and leverage capital ratios. The regulatory capital ratios measure different definitions of regulatory capital relative to total and risk-weighted assets. 2 The numerators of the regulatory capital ratios include various adjustments and deductions to GAAP-based regulatory capital components.

The agencies' capital rule includes two broad categories of deductions related to investments in the capital instruments of financial institutions. First, it requires a banking organization to deduct any investment in its own regulatory capital instruments and any investment in regulatory capital instruments held reciprocally with another financial institution. 3 Second, it requires a banking organization to deduct investments in capital instruments issued by unconsolidated financial institutions that would qualify as regulatory capital if issued by the banking organization itself. 4 For the purpose of the latter deduction, a banking organization may be required to deduct the entire amount of the investment, or it may be required to deduct only the portion of the investment that exceeds a certain threshold. 5 These deductions are intended to reduce interconnectedness and contagion risk among banks by discouraging banking organizations from investing in the regulatory capital of another financial institution.

For purposes of the deductions related to investments in the capital instruments of financial institutions, a banking organization must make the deduction from the component of regulatory capital for which the instrument qualifies or would qualify if it were issued by the banking organization that is holding the exposure. 6 For example, a banking organization that owns less than 10 percent of the common stock of an unaffiliated banking organization (non-significant investment in the capital of unconsolidated financial institution), and is invested in tier 2 instruments issued by the unaffiliated banking organization, must deduct from tier 2 capital the amount, if any, by which the investment exceeds 10 percent of its own common equity tier 1 capital when combined with other non-significant investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions. Any non-significant investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions below the 10 percent threshold must be assigned their appropriate risk-weight. 7

In October 2015, the Board invited public comment on a notice of proposed rulemaking (2015 proposal) to require the largest domestic and foreign banking organizations operating in the United States to maintain a minimum amount of total loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC), consisting of tier 1 capital (excluding minority interest) and certain long-term debt instruments (LTD). 8 The proposal had two core objectives: (1) To improve the resiliency of covered banking organizations (as defined below); and (2) to enhance the resolvability of covered banking organizations in the event of their failure or material financial distress. In December 2016, the Board issued a final rule (TLAC Rule) that was substantially consistent with the 2015 proposal. 9 The TLAC and LTD requirements set forth in the TLAC Rule take effect on January 1, 2019.

The TLAC and LTD requirements in the TLAC Rule build on, and serve as a complement to, the Board's regulatory capital requirements. 10 Regulatory capital requirements are intended to ensure that a banking organization has sufficient capital to remain a going concern. The objective of the TLAC and LTD requirements is to enhance financial stability by reducing the impact stemming from the failure of certain large and systemically important banking organizations by requiring such organizations to have sufficient loss-absorbing capacity on both a going-concern and a gone-concern basis. The TLAC and LTD requirements in the TLAC Rule apply to a U.S. top-tier bank holding company identified under the Board's rules as a global systemically important bank holding company (covered BHC) or a top-tier U.S. intermediate holding company subsidiary of a global systemically important foreign banking organization (foreign GSIB) with $50 billion or more in U.S. non-branch assets (covered IHC) (collectively, covered banking organizations) because the failure or material financial distress of covered banking organizations could substantially impair the functioning of the U.S. financial system. 11

The requirements in the TLAC Rule use many of the same measures that are set forth in the capital rule. For example, the TLAC Rule includes both risk-based and leverage-based requirements, including buffers on top of the minimum TLAC requirements that function in a manner similar to the capital conservation buffer in the capital rule. 12 The risk-based measures in the TLAC Rule help to ensure that the amount of TLAC maintained by a covered banking organization is commensurate with its overall risks, while the leverage-based measures in the TLAC Rule act as a backstop to the risk-based measures.

LTD, which count in regulatory capital in limited amounts if they comply with certain eligibility criteria, are capable of absorbing losses in resolution. This is because the debt holders' claim on a company's assets may not receive full payment in a resolution, receivership, insolvency, or similar proceeding, which would increase the size of a company's assets relative to the size of its liabilities and thereby increase the company's equity. This potential loss-absorbing capacity of LTD is part of the rationale for the deduction approach for investments in such debt instruments under this proposal.

The TLAC Rule requires covered BHCs to maintain outstanding minimum levels of “external TLAC” and “external LTD.” External TLAC is the sum of the tier 1 capital instruments issued directly by the covered BHC (excluding minority interests) and the external LTD issued by the covered BHC. Under the TLAC Rule, external LTD is generally unsecured debt that is issued directly by a covered BHC, has no features that would interfere with a smooth resolution proceeding, has a remaining maturity of at least one year, and is governed by U.S. law, among other provisions. 13

The TLAC Rule also requires covered IHCs to maintain minimum levels of TLAC and LTD. However, the specific requirements applicable to a covered IHC vary depending on the resolution strategy of the foreign GSIB parent of the covered IHC—either a single point-of-entry (SPOE)  14 resolution strategy or a multiple point-of-entry (MPOE) resolution strategy. 15 Under the TLAC Rule, a covered IHC that has a foreign GSIB parent with a SPOE strategy must issue LTD to the foreign GSIB parent or to a wholly owned subsidiary of the foreign GSIB parent, but a covered IHC that is expected to enter into resolution may issue LTD externally to third party investors, as well as internally to its foreign GSIB parent. 16

Given the important role of LTD in absorbing the losses of a covered banking organization in bankruptcy or resolution, the Board proposed limitations on investments by Board-regulated banking organizations in LTD issued by covered BHCs in its 2015 proposal, which are discussed in further detail below. 17 Such limitations already apply to investments in regulatory capital instruments of banking organizations in order to reduce interconnectedness and pro-cyclicality within the financial system in times of stress. The Board did not finalize these limitations when it issued the TLAC Rule because it needed additional time to work with the OCC and FDIC towards a proposed interagency approach regarding the regulatory capital treatment for investments in certain debt instruments issued by covered BHCs.

Accordingly, the agencies are now jointly proposing a regulatory capital treatment for investments in covered debt instruments, as defined below, that would apply to all advanced approaches banking organizations. In addition, this proposal takes into consideration and incorporates public comments from the 2015 proposal.

To reduce the potential contagion risk stemming from the failure of a covered BHC, the 2015 proposal would have amended the Board's capital rule to require a Board-regulated banking organization to deduct from its regulatory capital any direct, indirect, or synthetic investment in, or exposure to, LTD issued by a covered BHC as if they were investments in tier 2 capital instruments. 18 The form and amount of the deduction would have depended on the type of investment and various other factors, described below.

The proposed deduction requirement in the 2015 proposal would have substantially reduced the incentive of a Board-regulated banking organization to invest in LTDs issued by a covered BHC, thereby reducing the risk of contagion spreading to other banking organizations in the event of distress or failure of the covered BHC. Analysis conducted by Board staff concurrent with the 2015 proposal did not indicate that Board-regulated banking organizations owned a substantial amount of debt issued by covered BHCs.

The Board received approximately 37 comments on the 2015 proposal from banking and trade organizations, academic institutions, market advocacy groups, and an individual. A few of the commenters addressed the proposed deduction portion of the 2015 proposal. One commenter recommended an expansion of the proposed deductions to TLAC instruments issued by foreign GSIBs, while another commenter urged the Board to address its concerns through a different means than the capital rule. Some commenters supported the proposed deduction, and some suggested amending or abandoning the proposed deduction.

Commenters made a number of recommendations regarding the specific details of how the deductions from regulatory capital should be implemented. The recommendations included increasing the capital rule's deduction thresholds to reflect the increase in the scope of assets subject to deduction. Other commenters requested formal public guidance regarding the proposed deduction requirement to ensure that community banking organizations were aware of the requirement and could undertake the necessary preparations.

One commenter requested that the Board exclude debt instruments that do not qualify as LTD under the TLAC Rule from the scope of the deduction in the capital rule. Another commenter advocated for a less stringent capital deduction for senior debt, relative to the deduction requirement for subordinated debt.

With respect to the mechanics of the capital deduction, several commenters advocated for allowing a banking organization to first deduct any investment in a LTD from the banking organization's own LTD, before deducting such holdings from regulatory capital. Commenters argued that deducting LTD from regulatory capital would impose significant costs on issuers and adversely affect the market for these instruments. Some commenters also suggested that banking organizations be allowed to choose among several different treatments for investments in LTD, including the application of a higher risk weight rather than a capital deduction.

A number of commenters sought an exemption for underwriting and market making positions in LTD. These commenters argued that requiring deduction in these contexts could negatively impact market making activities of GSIBs and increase the cost of market making while reducing liquidity, thereby adversely impacting customers of banking organizations and the global economy. 19

The agencies are issuing this notice of proposed rulemaking (proposal or proposed rule) to recognize, for purposes of the agencies' capital rule, the systemic risks posed by banking organizations' investments in “covered debt instruments,” as defined below, and to create an incentive for advanced approaches banking organizations to limit their exposure to GSIBs. Absent the proposal, investments in covered debt instruments issued by covered BHCs, foreign GSIBs, and covered IHCs are generally subject to a risk weight of 100 percent and are not subject to deduction from regulatory capital.

The deductions that would be required under the proposal would affect the capital ratios of advanced approaches banking organizations—that is, the risk-based capital ratios that include “standardized total risk-weighted assets” and “advanced approaches total risk-weighted assets” in the denominator of the ratios, as well as the leverage ratio and the supplementary leverage ratio. The agencies believe such an approach appropriately reduces systemic risks.

The agencies believe the proposed rule will have relatively small effects on advanced approaches banking organizations. It is difficult to calculate TLAC holdings of affected institutions using available data. As noted earlier, Board analysis suggests that debt instruments subject to the proposed rule represent a minimal portion of the total assets of advanced approaches banking organizations. The proposed rule could pose some additional regulatory costs for advanced approaches banking organizations associated with changes to internal systems or processes. The agencies expect that the proposal will have the benefit of improving the resiliency and enhancing resolvability of advanced approaches banking organizations in the event that an entity required to issue LTD or TLAC fails or encounters material financial distress.

While the systemic risk associated with banking organizations' investments in covered debt instruments is greatest for large banking organizations, it is relevant for all banking organizations. Distress at a GSIB and the associated write-down or conversion into equity of its covered debt instruments could have a direct negative impact on the capital of investing banking organizations, potentially at a time when investing banking organizations are already experiencing financial stress. In order to strongly discourage smaller banking organizations from investing in covered debt instruments, the agencies intend to give further consideration on how to address these risks with respect to investments in covered debt instruments, as defined below, by non-advanced approaches banking organizations. The agencies recognize that the proposed approach is relatively complex and, as a result, are only proposing to apply it to advanced approaches banking organizations at this time.

In late 2018, the agencies issued the Interagency Tailoring NPR that would, among other changes, amend the scope of “advanced approaches banking organizations.”  20 Under the Interagency Tailoring NPR, the scope of “advanced approaches banking organizations” would be amended to include only those banking organizations subject to Category I or Category II standards. 21 For purposes of considering and commenting on this NPR, the requirements that would apply to “advanced approaches banking organizations” would be included as Category I and II standards under the Interagency Tailoring NPR. Commenters should consider both proposals together for purposes of their comments to the agencies.

Question 1: The agencies invite comment on all aspects of the proposed deduction approach for investments in covered debt instruments by advanced approaches banking organizations.

Question 2: To what extent do non-advanced approaches banking organizations have material holdings of covered debt instruments issued by covered BHCs, covered IHCs, and foreign GSIBs? The agencies invite data demonstrating the relative significance of such holdings.

Under the existing capital rule, a banking organization must deduct from regulatory capital any investment in its own capital instruments and investments in the capital of other financial institutions that it holds reciprocally. Other investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions are subject to deduction to the extent they exceed certain thresholds.

Under the proposal, an investment in a covered debt instrument by an advanced approaches banking organization generally would be treated as an investment in a tier 2 capital instrument, and therefore, would be subject to deduction from the advanced approaches banking organization's own tier 2 capital. The existing deduction approaches under the capital rule would therefore apply to a banking organization's investments in its own covered debt instruments and to reciprocal cross-holdings of covered debt instruments; that is, an advanced approaches banking organization would deduct from its own tier 2 capital any investments in its own covered debt instruments and reciprocal crossholdings of covered debt instruments with another banking organization. In addition, the existing corresponding deduction approach in the capital rule would apply to any required deduction by advanced approaches banking organizations of an investment in a covered debt instrument that exceeds certain thresholds.

The proposal would revise section ____.22(c), (f), and (h) of the capital rule to incorporate the proposed deduction approach for investments in covered debt instruments. Several new definitions would be added to section ___.2 in order to effectuate these deductions. Further, the definition of “investment in the capital of an unconsolidated financial institution” would be amended to correct a typographical error.

Consistent with the Board's 2015 proposal, the proposal would add or amend certain definitions in section &___.2 of the capital rule to implement the proposed deduction approach. Under the proposal, a “covered debt instrument” would be defined to include an unsecured debt instrument that is: (1) Issued by a covered BHC and that is an “eligible debt security” for purposes of the TLAC Rule, 22 or that is pari passu or subordinated to any “eligible debt security” issued by the covered BHC; or (2) issued by a covered IHC and that is an “eligible Covered IHC debt security” for purposes of the TLAC Rule, 23 or that is pari passu or subordinated to any “eligible Covered IHC debt security” issued by the covered IHC. A covered debt instrument would not include a debt instrument that qualifies as tier 2 capital under the capital rule.

A “covered debt instrument” also would include any unsecured debt instrument issued by a foreign GSIB or any of its subsidiaries, other than its covered IHC, for the purpose of absorbing losses or recapitalizing the issuer or any of its subsidiaries in connection with a resolution, receivership, insolvency or similar proceeding of the issuer or any of its subsidiaries. Further, covered debt instruments would also include any debt instrument that is pari passu or subordinated to any unsecured debt instrument described above issued by the foreign GSIB or any of its subsidiaries, other than an unsecured debt instrument that is included in the regulatory capital of the issuer.

Question 3: Under the proposed definition of “covered debt instrument,” unsecured debt instruments issued by a covered BHC or a covered IHC would be covered debt instruments—and thus potentially subject to deduction—if they were eligible debt securities or eligible Covered IHC debt securities, as applicable, under the TLAC Rule, or if they were pari passu or subordinated to any eligible debt security or eligible Covered IHC debt security. What would be a less burdensome way to include approximately the same debt instruments within the definition of “covered debt instrument?” For example, should “covered debt instrument” include any unsecured debt instrument issued by a covered BHC or a covered IHC, including, for example, debt instruments that are senior to all eligible debt securities or eligible Covered IHC debt securities?

In late 2016, the BCBS published its TLAC Holdings standard, which described the regulatory capital treatment under the BCBS Basel III framework applicable to investments in non-capital TLAC instruments. 24 These investments are defined in the BCBS standards as “other TLAC liabilities.” Similar to the definition of “covered debt instrument” described in this proposal, “other TLAC liabilities” are defined by the BCBS to include all direct, indirect, and synthetic investments in the instruments of a GSIB resolution entity that are eligible to be recognized as external TLAC but that do not otherwise qualify as regulatory capital. Instruments pari passu to TLAC, aside from certain exemptions described below, are also included in the BCBS's definition of “other TLAC liabilities.” In addition, similar to the proposal's definition of “covered debt instruments,” “other TLAC liabilities” are subject to deduction from the investing bank's regulatory capital, depending on the nature of the investment. However, there are several differences between the proposed definition of “covered debt instrument” and the BCBS's definition of “other TLAC liabilities.”

Under the FSB's TLAC Term Sheet, certain “Excluded Liabilities” do not qualify as TLAC and therefore are not subject to deduction under the TLAC Holdings standard, even if they rank pari passu or subordinated to a TLAC instrument. Excluded Liabilities include deposits, liabilities arising from derivatives, and structured notes, among other items. The TLAC Rule prohibits or limits covered banking organizations from entering into financial arrangements that may compromise an orderly resolution process, including the issuance of Excluded Liabilities that rank pari passu or subordinated to LTD (referred to as “clean holding company” requirements in the TLAC Rule). Therefore, the definition of “covered debt instrument” in the proposal would not provide an exemption for Excluded Liabilities that rank pari passu or subordinated to LTD. An investment in a covered debt investment that constitutes an Excluded Liability may therefore be subject to deduction if it ranks pari passu or subordinated to LTD. To provide symmetrical treatment between liabilities issued by covered banking organizations and foreign GSIBs, the proposal also would not exempt Excluded Liabilities issued by foreign GSIBs from the proposed definition of “covered debt instrument.”

In addition, the TLAC Holdings standard excludes from the definition of “other TLAC liabilities” instruments that are pari passu to (1) Excluded Liabilities and (2) other instruments that are eligible for recognition as external TLAC by virtue of the exemptions to the subordination requirements in the FSB's TLAC Term Sheet. 25 However, the TLAC Holdings standard also provide national discretion to recognize such pari passu debt instruments as external TLAC. In jurisdictions that have exercised this discretion, such instruments are subject to the proportional deduction approach set forth in the TLAC Holdings standard. 26

The proposed definition of “covered debt instruments” would include all unsecured debt instruments that are pari passu or subordinated to instruments issued by a foreign GSIB for the purpose of satisfying the foreign GSIB's home-country TLAC requirements. This would include instruments that are pari passu to Excluded Liabilities if such instruments are recognized as external TLAC under home-country requirements as a matter of national discretion. In contrast to the BCBS standard, the proposal would not require proportional deduction for these instruments. Instead, the proposal would require deduction using the existing deduction approaches for tier 2 capital instruments under the capital rule. The agencies believe that implementation of the proportional deduction approach would introduce a high degree of complexity and operational burden because it would require a banking organization to track the full or partial recognition of TLAC instruments that may be pari passu to other liabilities in foreign jurisdictions. In addition, given that advanced approaches banking organizations are not expected to hold material investments in “covered debt instruments,” use of the existing deduction approaches for tier 2 capital instruments is unlikely to have a meaningful impact on banking organizations' regulatory capital ratios relative to the proportional deduction approach.

The proposal would also add a definition of “excluded covered debt instrument” to the capital rule in order to identify covered debt instruments held for short-term trading purposes that would not be subject to deduction, if below a certain threshold. The definition and prudential treatment of excluded covered debt instruments and their deduction are discussed in more detail in section II.C below.

Question 4: How well does the proposed definition of covered debt instrument capture non-capital debt instruments issued by covered BHCs and covered IHCs for the purposes of meeting their TLAC requirements? The agencies invite comment on all aspects of the definition of covered debt instruments as it relates to instruments issued by covered BHCs and covered IHCs, particularly the scope of instruments that may be subject to deduction under the proposed definition.

Question 5: To what degree does the proposed definition of covered debt instrument capture debt instruments issued by foreign GSIBs or their subsidiaries under foreign implementations of the international TLAC standard? The agencies invite comment on the definition of covered debt instrument, and whether it appropriately captures unsecured debt instruments that do not qualify as regulatory capital and that are issued by a foreign GSIB or any of its subsidiaries. Which method for identifying covered debt instruments would be simpler to apply in practice: (1.) Referring to the purpose of the debt instrument as to absorbing losses or recapitalizing the issuer, as proposed by the agencies, or (2.) referring to home country rules implementing the FSB's TLAC Term Sheet?

Question 6: What are possible alternatives to the definition of “excluded covered debt instrument?” For example, should the agencies consider as an alternative to “held for the purpose of short-term or with the intent of benefiting from actual or expected short-term price movements” a different standard, such as held available-for-sale or classified as a trading asset for accounting purposes?

Similar to the measurement of investments in financial institutions capital instruments, an “investment in a covered debt instrument” would be defined as a net long position in a covered debt instrument, including direct, indirect, and synthetic exposures to such covered debt instrument. Investments in covered debt instruments would exclude underwriting positions held for five business days or less. In addition, the proposal would amend the definitions of “indirect exposure” and “synthetic exposure” in the capital rule to add exposures to covered debt instruments. 27

Under the agencies' capital rule, a banking organization must deduct from regulatory capital an investment in its own capital instruments and investments in the capital of other financial institutions that it holds reciprocally under sections____.22(c)(1) and (3). The proposal would amend sections____.22(c)(1) and (3) to require an advanced approaches banking organization to also deduct from its tier 2 capital investments in its own covered debt instruments and any investment in a covered debt instrument that is held reciprocally with another banking organization.

Under sections___.22(c)(4) and (5) of the capital rule, a banking organization must deduct from regulatory capital certain investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions. The calculation of the deduction depends on whether the banking organization has a “significant” or a “non-significant” investment, with “significant” defined as ownership of more than 10 percent of the common stock of the unconsolidated financial institution. 28 When a banking organization has a “significant investment” in an unconsolidated financial institution, the banking organization must deduct from regulatory capital any investment in the capital of the unconsolidated financial institution that is not in the form of common stock. 29 If the banking organization has one or more “non-significant investments” in unconsolidated financial institutions, it must aggregate such investments and deduct from regulatory capital any amount that exceeds 10 percent of the banking organization's common equity tier 1 capital. 30

The proposal would amend section___.22(c)(4) of the capital rule to require an advanced approaches banking organization with a non-significant investment in a covered debt instrument to include such investment in the aggregate amount of non-significant investments in the capital of other unconsolidated financial institutions. As under the existing capital rule, the proposal would require a banking organization to deduct from regulatory capital the amount by which the aggregate amount of non-significant investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions exceeds 10 percent of the advanced approaches banking organization's common equity tier 1 capital. Any investment in a covered debt instrument subject to deduction would be deducted according to the corresponding deduction approach described below in section II.D.

The proposal includes limited exclusions from this approach. The specifics of the applicable exclusion would depend on whether a firm is a covered BHC or is a subsidiary of a GSIB, consistent with the TLAC Holdings standard. To help support a deep and liquid market for covered debt instruments, the proposal would allow advanced approaches banking organizations to hold limited amounts of, and conduct limited market making in, such instruments. The proposal would provide that, under certain circumstances, an advanced approaches banking organization that is a covered BHC or is a subsidiary of a GSIB (advanced approaches GSIB banking organization) could designate an investment in a covered debt instrument as an “excluded covered debt instrument” if it holds the covered debt instrument for 30 business days or less for the purpose of short-term resale or with the intent of benefiting from actual or expected short-term price movements, or to lock in arbitrage profits. In this case, the advanced approaches GSIB banking organization could exclude each excluded covered debt instrument from the threshold calculation and potential deduction under section___.22(c)(4) if the aggregate amount of excluded covered debt instruments, measured by their gross long position, is 5 percent or less of its common equity tier 1 capital. If the aggregate amount of excluded covered debt instruments is more than 5 percent of the common equity tier 1 capital of the advanced approaches GSIB banking organization, the excess over 5 percent would be subject to deduction from tier 2 capital. In addition, if an excluded covered debt instrument were held for more than 30 business days or ceased to be held for the purpose of short-term resale or with the intent of benefiting from actual or expected short-term price movements, or to lock in arbitrage profits, the excluded covered debt instrument would be subject to deduction from tier 2 capital.

Consistent with the TLAC Holdings standard, the proposal includes a more simple materiality threshold for advanced approaches banking organizations that are not covered BHCs or subsidiaries of GSIBs (advanced approaches non-GSIB banking organizations) given that these banking organizations pose less systemic risk than GSIBs. Such banking organizations could exclude covered debt instruments from the threshold calculation and potential deduction under section ___.22(c)(4) if the aggregate amount of covered debt instruments, measured by their gross long position, is 5 percent or less of its common equity tier 1 capital. If the aggregate amount of covered debt instruments is more than 5 percent of an advanced approaches non-GSIB banking organization's common equity tier 1 capital, the excess over 5 percent would be included, on a net long position basis in accordance with section___.22(h), with other non-significant investments in the capital instruments of unconsolidated financial institutions as described above.

The proposal would amend section___.22(c)(5) of the capital rule to require an advanced approaches banking organization with an investment in a covered debt instrument issued by an unconsolidated financial institution to deduct the investment from tier 2 capital, in accordance with the corresponding deduction approach, if the advanced approaches banking organization has a significant investment in the capital of the unconsolidated financial institution.

Question 7: Do the proposed exclusions from deduction for certain investments in covered debt instruments of an unconsolidated financial institution appropriately align with the treatment set forth in the TLAC Holdings standard? Should all banking organizations subject to the rule be subject to uniform exclusion requirements, and if so, why? Would the exclusion applicable only to GSIBs and the 5 percent threshold below which deduction is not required allow for sufficient market making activity to support a deep and liquid market for covered debt instruments?

Under the corresponding deduction approach, a banking organization must apply any required deduction to the component of capital for which the underlying instrument would qualify if it were issued by the banking organization. 31 If the banking organization does not have enough of the component of capital to give full effect to the deduction, the corresponding deduction approach provides that any amount of the investment that has not already been deducted would be deducted from the next, more subordinated component of capital. 32 If, for example, a banking organization has insufficient amounts of tier 2 capital and additional tier 1 capital to effect a required deduction, the banking organization would need to deduct from common equity tier 1 capital the amount of the investment that exceeds the tier 2 and additional tier 1 capital of the banking organization. 33 The proposal would amend the corresponding deduction approach in section ___.22(c)(2) of the capital rule to specify that an investment in a covered debt instrument by an advanced approaches banking organization would be subject to the corresponding deduction approach.

Question 8: Are there simpler alternatives to the proposed deduction approach for investments in covered debt instruments that would achieve the same objectives of reducing both interconnectedness within the financial system and systemic risk?

The proposal would follow the same general approach as currently provided under the agencies' capital rule regarding the calculation of the amount of any deduction and the treatment of guarantees and indirect investments for purposes of the deductions. Under the capital rule, the amount of a banking organization's investment in its own capital instrument or in the capital instrument of an unconsolidated financial institution is the banking organization's net long position in the capital instrument as calculated under section____.22(h) of the capital rule. Under section___.22(h), a banking organization may net certain gross short positions in a capital instrument against a gross long position in the instrument to determine the net long position. The amount of an investment potentially subject to deduction under section ___.22(c) is the net long position.

The proposal would modify section___.22(h) of the capital rule such that an advanced approaches banking organization would determine its net long position in an exposure to its own covered debt instrument or in a covered debt instrument issued by an unconsolidated financial institution in the same manner as currently provided for investments in the capital of an unconsolidated financial institution or investments in an institution's own capital instruments. Consistent with the current capital rule, the calculation of a net long position would take into account direct investments in covered debt instruments as well as indirect exposures to covered debt instruments held through investment funds.

A banking organization has three options under the capital rule to measure its gross long position in a capital instrument held indirectly through an investment fund. 34 The proposal would amend section___22(h)(2)(ii) of the capital rule to provide the same three options to determine the gross long position in a covered debt instrument held through an investment fund. The first option would be to use the entire carrying value of the investment in the fund. The second option would be, with prior supervisory approval, for the advanced approaches banking organization to use a conservative estimate of the amount of the investment in the covered debt instrument held through the fund. The third option would be to multiply the carrying value of the advanced approaches banking organization's investment in the fund by the exact percentage of the covered debt instrument held by the investment fund or by the highest stated prospectus limit for such an investment. In each case, the amount of the gross long position may be reduced by the advanced approaches banking organization's qualifying short positions to reach the net long position. 35

For purposes of any deduction required for an advanced approaches banking organization's investment in the capital of an unconsolidated financial institution, the amount of a covered debt instrument would include any contractual obligations the advanced approaches banking organization has to purchase such covered debt instruments.

The agencies are amending the definition of investment in the capital of an unconsolidated financial institution in section___.2 of the capital rule in order to correct a drafting error. The agencies' capital rule currently defines investment in the capital of an unconsolidated financial institution as “ . . . an instrument that is recognized as capital for regulatory purposes by the primary supervisor of an unconsolidated regulated financial institution and is an instrument that is part of the GAAP equity of an unconsolidated unregulated financial institution . . . . ” The proposal would change “and is” to “or” to reflect the agencies' original intent.

The agencies invite comment on all aspects of the proposed deduction approaches for investments in covered debt instruments by advanced approaches banking organizations, and the technical amendment to the agencies' capital rule. Comments are requested about the potential advantages of the proposal in ensuring the safety and soundness of advanced approaches banking organizations as well as the stability of the financial system. Comments are also requested about the capital impact of the proposal and the nature and extent of costs and benefits to the affected institutions or the broader economy.

The Board is proposing to modify the instructions to the Consolidated Financial Statements for Holding Companies (FR Y-9C), Schedule HC-R, Part I and Part II, to effectuate the deductions from regulatory capital for Board-regulated advanced approaches banking organizations related to investments in covered debt instruments and excluded covered debt instruments as described above.

Specifically, the Board would modify the instructions of the FR Y-9C for Schedule HC-R, Part I, item 33, “Tier 2 capital deductions.” On the FR Y-9C, a Board-regulated advanced approaches GSIB banking organization would be required to deduct from tier 2 capital the aggregate amount of its investments in covered debt instruments that, when combined with the banking organization's other non-significant investments in unconsolidated financial institutions, exceed 10 percent of the common equity tier 1 capital of the banking organization. Also, if an excluded covered debt instrument is held by a Board-regulated advanced approaches GSIB banking organization for more than 30 business days, or is no longer held for the purpose of short-term resale or with the intent of benefiting from actual or expected short-term price movements, or to lock in arbitrage profits, the excluded covered debt instrument would be deducted from tier 2 capital.

In addition, for purposes of the deduction requirements related to non-significant investments in unconsolidated financial institutions, Board-regulated advanced approaches non-GSIB banking organizations would be required to deduct from tier 2 capital those investments in covered debt instruments that exceed 5 percent of common equity tier 1 capital, and that also, when combined with the banking organization's other non-significant investments in unconsolidated financial institutions, exceed 10 percent of the common equity tier 1 capital of the banking organization. The Board would also modify the instructions for calculating other deduction-related and risk-weighted asset line items to incorporate investments in covered debt instruments and excluded debt instruments, as applicable, by Board-regulated advanced approaches banking organizations.

The agencies would propose to modify in a future interagency reporting proposal the Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income for a Bank with Domestic and Foreign Offices (FFIEC 031), Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income for a Bank with Domestic Offices Only (FFEIC 041) (collectively with the FFIEC 031, the Call Report  36 ), and Regulatory Capital Reporting for Institutions Subject to the Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework (FFIEC 101) in a manner consistent with the changes described above to the FR Y-9C.

The Board is proposing to modify Schedule HC-R, Part I of the FR Y-9C by adding new data items that would publicly disclose: (1) The LTD and TLAC for covered BHCs and covered IHCs; (2) these firms' LTD and TLAC ratios to ensure compliance with the TLAC Rule; (3) TLAC buffers; and (4) amendments to the instructions for the calculation of eligible retained income (item 47), institution-specific capital buffer (items 46.a and 46.b), and distributions and discretionary bonus payments (item 48) for covered BHCs and covered IHCs.

Certain provisions of the proposed rule contain “collection of information” within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the agencies may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently-valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

The proposal would revise sections __.22(c), (f), and (h) of the capital rule to incorporate the proposed deduction approach for investments in covered debt instruments. Several new definitions would be added to section __.2 in order to effectuate these deductions. Further, the definition of “investment in the capital of an unconsolidated financial institution” would be amended to correct a typographical error.

The proposal will require changes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for Holding Companies (FR Y-9C; OMB No. 7100-0128). The Board reviewed the proposed rule under the authority delegated to the Board by OMB.

Comments are invited on:

a. Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the agencies' functions, including whether the information has practical utility;

b. The accuracy or the estimate of the burden of the information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

d. Ways to minimize the burden of the information collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments on aspects of this notice that may affect reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements and burden estimates should be sent to the addresses listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer by mail to U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, #10235, Washington, DC 20503; facsimile to (202) 395-6974; or email to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov, Attention, Federal Banking Agency Desk Officer.

Title of information collection: Consolidated Financial Statements for Holding Companies.

Agency form number: FR Y-9C, FR Y-9LP, FR Y-9SP, FR Y-9ES, and FR Y-9CS.

OMB control number: 7100-0128.

Frequency: Quarterly, semiannually, and annually.

Affected public: Businesses or other for-profit.

Respondents: Bank holding companies (BHCs), savings and loan holding companies (SLHCs), securities holding companies (SHCs), and U.S. Intermediate Holding Companies (IHCs) (collectively, holding companies (HCs)).

Estimated number of respondents: FR Y-9C (non-advanced approaches holding companies): 292; FR Y-9C (advanced approached holding companies): 18; FR Y-9LP: 338; FR Y-9SP: 4,238; FR Y-9ES: 82; FR Y-9CS: 236.

General description of report: The FR Y-9 family of reporting forms continues to be the primary source of financial data on HCs on which examiners rely between on-site inspections. Financial data from these reporting forms is used to detect emerging financial problems, review performance, conduct pre-inspection analysis, monitor and evaluate capital adequacy, evaluate HC mergers and acquisitions, and analyze an HC's overall financial condition to ensure the safety and soundness of its operations. The FR Y-9C serves as the standardized financial statements for certain consolidated holding companies. The Board requires HCs to provide standardized financial statements to fulfill the Board's statutory obligation to supervise these organizations. HCs file the FR Y-9C on a quarterly basis.

Legal authorization and confidentiality: The FR Y-9 family of reports is authorized by section 5(c) of the Bank Holding Company Act, 37 section 10(b) of the Home Owners' Loan Act, 38 section 618 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), 39 and section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act. 40 The obligation of covered institutions to report this information is mandatory.

With respect to FR Y-9C, Schedule HI's item 7(g) “FDIC deposit insurance assessments,” Schedule HC-P's item 7(a) “Representation and warranty reserves for 1-4 family residential mortgage loans sold to U.S. government agencies and government sponsored agencies,” and Schedule HC-P's item 7(b) “Representation and warranty reserves for 1-4 family residential mortgage loans sold to other parties” are considered confidential. Such treatment is appropriate because the data is not publicly available and the public release of this data is likely to impair the Board's ability to collect necessary information in the future and could cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the respondent. Thus, this information may be kept confidential under exemptions (b)(4) of the Freedom of Information Act, which exempts from disclosure “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential” (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)), and (b)(8) of the Freedom of Information Act, which exempts from disclosure information related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)).

Current actions: To implement the reporting requirements of the proposed rule, the Board proposes to revise the FR Y-9C, Schedule HC-R, Part I, Regulatory Capital Components and Ratios, to amend instructions for line items 11, 17, 24, and 33 to effectuate the deductions from regulatory capital for advanced approaches holding companies related to investments in covered debt instruments and excluded covered debt instruments as described above. Further, the Board proposes to revise the FR Y-9C, Schedule HC-R, Part II, Risk-Weighted Assets, to amend instructions for line items 2(a), 2(b), 7, and 8 to incorporate investments in covered debt instruments and excluded debt instruments, as applicable, by advanced approaches holding companies in their calculation of risk-weighted assets.

In addition, the Board proposes to revise the FR Y-9C, Schedule HC-R, Part I, Regulatory Capital Components and Ratios, to create new line items and instructions to allow the BHCs of U.S. GSIBs and the IHCs of foreign GSIBs to publicly report their long-term debt (LTD) and total loss absorbing capacity (TLAC) in accordance, respectively, with 12 CFR 252, Subpart G and 12 CFR 252, Subpart P. Specifically, new line items would be created to report, as applicable, BHCs of U.S GSIBs' and IHCs of foreign GSIBs' (1.) outstanding eligible LTD (item 46); (2.) TLAC (item 47); (3.) LTD standardized risk-weighted asset ratio (item 48, column A); (4.) TLAC standardized risk-weighted asset ratio (item 48, column B); (5.) LTD advanced approaches risk-weighted asset ratio (item 49, column A); (6.) TLAC advanced approaches risk-weighted asset ratio (item 49, column B); (7.) LTD leverage ratio (item 50, column A); (8.) TLAC leverage ratio (item 50, column B); (9.) LTD supplementary leverage ratio (item 51, column A); (10.) TLAC supplementary leverage ratio (item 51, column B); (11.) institution-specific TLAC risk-weighted asset buffer necessary to avoid limitations on distributions and discretionary bonus payments (item 53(a)); and (12.) TLAC leverage buffer necessary to avoid limitations on distributions and discretionary bonus payments (item 53(b)). Existing line items 46, 46(a), 46(b), 47, and 48 would be re-numbered, and respective instructions' references updated, to account for the proposed inclusion of the new data collection items described above. Finally, the instructions for re-numbered line item 55, “Distributions and discretionary bonus payments during the quarter,” would be amended for the BHCs of U.S. GSIBs and the IHCs of foreign GSIBs to reflect maximum payout amounts that take into account a firm's TLAC risk-weighted and leverage buffers reported in proposed line items 53(a) and 53(b), respectively. The draft reporting forms and instructions are available on the Board's public website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportforms/review.aspx.

Estimated average hours per response: FR Y-9C (non-advanced approaches holding companies): 46.43; FR Y-9C (advanced approached holding companies): 48.31; FR Y-9LP: 5.27; FR Y-9SP: 5.40; FR Y-9ES: 0.50; FR Y-9CS: 0.50.

Estimated annual burden hours: FR Y-9C (non advanced approaches holding companies): 54,230; FR Y-9C (advanced approached holding companies): 3,478; FR Y-9LP: 7,125; FR Y-9SP: 45,770; FR Y-9ES: 41; FR Y-9CS: 472.

In addition to the collection of information discussed above, the agencies would propose to modify in a future interagency reporting proposal the Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Reports) (FFIEC 031 and FFIEC 041; OMB No. 1557-0081 (OCC), 7100-0036 (Board), and 3064-0052) (FDIC)) and Risk-Based Capital Reporting for Institutions Subject to the Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework (FFIEC 101; OMB No. 1557-0239 (OCC), 7100-0319 (Board), and 3064-0159 (FDIC)) in a manner consistent with the changes described above to the FR Y-9C. The Board would also propose to modify the Capital Assessments and Stress Testing (FR Y-14A and Q; OMB No. 7100-0341) in a manner consistent with the changes described above to the FR Y-9C. These modifications will be addressed in one or more separate Federal Register notice(s).

OCC: The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., (RFA), requires an agency, in connection with a proposed rule, to prepare an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis describing the impact of the rule on small entities (defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) for purposes of the RFA to include commercial banks and savings institutions with total assets of $550 million or less and trust companies with total assets of $38.5 million of less) or to certify that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

As of December 31, 2017, the OCC supervises 886 small entities. 41

As part of our analysis, we consider whether the proposal will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, pursuant to the RFA Because the proposal only applies to advanced approaches banking organizations it will not impact any OCC-supervised small entities. Therefore, the proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Therefore, the OCC certifies that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of OCC-supervised small entities.

Board: The Board is providing an initial regulatory flexibility analysis with respect to this proposed rule. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., (RFA), requires an agency to consider whether the rules it proposes will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 42 In connection with a proposed rule, the RFA requires an agency to prepare an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis describing the impact of the rule on small entities or to certify that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. An initial regulatory flexibility analysis must contain (1) a description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered; (2) a succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule; (3) a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply; (4) a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; (5) an identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap with, or conflict with the proposed rule; and (6) a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish its stated objectives.

The Board has considered the potential impact of the proposed rule on small entities in accordance with the RFA. Based on its analysis and for the reasons stated below, the Board believes that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Nevertheless, the Board is publishing and inviting comment on this initial regulatory flexibility analysis. A final regulatory flexibility analysis will be conducted after comments received during the public comment period have been considered. The proposal would also make corresponding changes to the Board's reporting forms.

As discussed in detail above, the proposed rule would amend the capital rule. Under the proposed rule, the Board would require advanced approaches banking organizations to deduct investments in and exposures to covered debt instruments issued by covered BHCs, covered IHCs, and foreign GSIBs and their subsidiaries. These deductions may be subject to regulatory thresholds, as described in the Supplemental Information above. Deductions related to investments in and exposures to covered debt instruments would be effectuated by deduction from tier 2 capital according to the corresponding deduction approach, subject to applicable deduction thresholds.

The Board has broad authority under the International Lending Supervision Act (ILSA)  43 and the PCA provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act  44 to establish regulatory capital requirements for the institutions it regulates. For example, ILSA directs each Federal banking agency to cause banking institutions to achieve and maintain adequate capital by establishing minimum capital requirements as well as by other means that the agency deems appropriate. 45 The PCA provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act direct each Federal banking agency to specify, for each relevant capital measure, the level at which an IDI subsidiary is well capitalized, adequately capitalized, undercapitalized, and significantly undercapitalized. 46 In addition, the Board has broad authority to establish regulatory capital standards for bank holding companies under the Bank Holding Company Act and the Dodd-Frank Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). 47

The proposed rule would apply only to an advanced approaches Board-regulated institution. This is a depository institution, bank holding company, savings and loan holding company, or intermediate holding company with at least $250 billion in total consolidated assets or has consolidated on-balance sheet foreign exposures of at least $10 billion, or a subsidiary of a depository institution, bank holding company, savings and loan holding company, or intermediate holding company that is an advanced approaches banking organization. The proposed rule would not apply to any small entities. Further, as discussed previously in the Paperwork Reduction Act section, the proposal would make changes to the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule by proposing to collect information from firms identified as advanced approaches banking organizations. These changes would include limited revisions to the Consolidated Financial Statements for Holding Companies (FR Y-9C) to provide for reporting of investments in covered debt securities and, as necessary, to reflect deduction of such investments. In addition, the FR Y-9C would be revised to provide for reporting of TLAC and LTD ratios and TLAC buffers under the TLAC Rule by covered BHCs and covered IHCs. These changes would not impact small entities. In addition, the Board is aware of no other Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed changes to the capital rule. Therefore, the Board believes that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on small banking organizations supervised by the Board and therefore believes that there are no significant alternatives to the proposed rule that would reduce the economic impact on small banking organizations supervised by the Board.

The Board welcomes comment on all aspects of its analysis. In particular, the Board requests that commenters describe the nature of any impact on small entities and provide empirical data to illustrate and support the extent of the impact.

FDIC:

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires an agency, in connection with a proposed rule, to prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of a proposed rule on small entities. 48 However, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required if the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has defined “small entities” to include banking organizations with total assets of less than or equal to $550 million who are independently owned and operated or owned by a holding company with less than $550 million in total assets. 49 For the reasons described below and under section 605(b) of the RFA, the FDIC certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The FDIC supervises 3,604 institutions, of which 2,804 are considered small entities for the purposes of RFA. 50

This proposed rule will affect all institutions subject to the advanced approaches regulations and their subsidiaries. The FDIC supervises two institutions that are subsidiaries of advanced approaches institutions and have $550 million or less in total assets. 51 However, neither institution is considered a small entity for the purposes of RFA since they are owned by holding companies with over $550 million in total assets. Since this proposal does not affect any institutions that are defined as small entities for the purposes of the RFA, the FDIC certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The FDIC invites comments on all aspects of the supporting information provided in this RFA section. In particular, would this rule have any significant effects on small entities that the FDIC has not identified?

Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act  52 requires the Federal banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The agencies have sought to present the proposed rule in a simple and straightforward manner, and invite comment on the use of plain language. For example:

• Have the agencies organized the material to suit your needs? If not, how could they present the proposed rule more clearly?

• Are the requirements in the proposed rule clearly stated? If not, how could the proposed rule be more clearly stated?

• Do the regulations contain technical language or jargon that is not clear? If so, which language requires clarification?

• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the regulation easier to understand? If so, what changes would achieve that?

• Would more, but shorter, sections be better? If so, which sections should be changed?”

• What other changes can the agencies incorporate to make the regulation easier to understand?

The OCC analyzed the proposed rule under the factors set forth in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532). Under this analysis, the OCC considered whether the proposed rule includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted for inflation). The OCC has determined that this proposed rule would not result in expenditures by State, local, and Tribal governments, or the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. 53 Accordingly, the OCC has not prepared a written statement to accompany this proposal.

Pursuant to section 302(a) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act (RCDRIA), 54 in determining the effective date and administrative compliance requirements for new regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other requirements on insured depository institutions, each Federal banking agency must consider, consistent with principles of safety and soundness and the public interest, any administrative burdens that such regulations would place on depository institutions, including small depository institutions, and customers of depository institutions, as well as the benefits of such regulations. In addition, section 302(b) of RCDRIA requires new regulations and amendments to regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on insured depository institutions generally to take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter that begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published in final form. 55

The agencies note that comment on these matters has been solicited in other sections of this Supplementary Information section, and that the requirements of RCDRIA will be considered as part of the overall rulemaking process. In addition, the agencies also invite any other comments that further will inform the agencies' consideration of RCDRIA.

For the reasons set out in the joint preamble, the OCC proposes to amend 12 CFR part 3 as follows.

The additions and revisions read as follows:

The additions and revisions to read as follows:

The additions and revisions read as follows:

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 August 9, 2016, Embraer applied for a change to Type Certificate No. TC00062IB to include additional flexibility to the normal load factor limit on the Model EMB-550 airplane, by amending the existing Model EMB-550 Special Conditions No. 25-520-SC as a result of harmonization efforts in the Flight Test Harmonization Working Group (FTHWG). The Embraer EMB-550 airplane, currently approved under Type Certificate No. TC00062IB, is a twin-engine, transport category airplane with a maximum takeoff weight of 42,857 pounds. The EMB-550 has a maximum seating capacity of 12 passengers.

The Model EMB-550 flight control system design incorporates normal load factor limiting on a full-time basis that will prevent the pilot from inadvertently or intentionally exceeding the positive or negative airplane limit load factor. This feature is considered novel and unusual in that the current regulations do not provide standards for maneuverability and controllability evaluations for such systems.

Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Embraer must show that the EMB-550 airplane, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. TC00062IB or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations ( i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Embraer EMB-550 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

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 novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Embraer EMB-550 airplane 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 issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

The Embraer EMB-550 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:

The Model EMB-550 flight control system design incorporates normal load factor limiting on a full-time basis that will prevent the pilot from inadvertently or intentionally exceeding the positive or negative airplane limit load factor. This feature is considered novel and unusual in that the current regulations do not provide standards for maneuverability and controllability evaluations for such systems.

The normal load factor limit on the Model EMB-550 is unique in that traditional airplanes with conventional flight control systems (mechanical linkages) are limited in the pitch axis only by the elevator surface area and deflection limit. The elevator control power is normally derived for adequate controllability and the maneuverability at the most critical longitudinal pitching moment. The result is that traditional airplanes have a significant portion of the flight envelope where maneuverability in excess of limit structural design values is possible. The Model EMB-550 because of the normal load factor limit does not have this excess maneuverability.

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 does not specify requirements for demonstrating maneuver control that impose any handling qualities requirements beyond the design limit structural loads. Nevertheless, some pilots are accustomed to the availability of this excess maneuver capacity in case of extreme emergency such as upset recoveries or collision avoidance.

As a result of harmonization efforts with other civil aviation authorities through the Flight Test Harmonization Working Group (FTHWG), the FAA is including additional flexibility in maneuverability limits by amending the existing Model EMB-550 Special Conditions No. 25-520-SC. This additional flexibility allows for reduced maneuverability limits beyond Vmo/Mmo. The existing special conditions are otherwise unchanged.

The proposed 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 Embraer EMB-550 airplane. Should Embraer 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.

Certification of the Embraer EMB-550 airplane is currently scheduled for April 2019. The substance of these special conditions has been subject to the notice and public comment procedure in several prior instances. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the applicant's installation of the system and the certification of the airplane, we are shortening the public comment period to 20 days.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Embraer EMB-550 airplanes.

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2019-0188; Product Identifier 2018-NM-174-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

We have received reports of uncommanded movement of the Captain's and First Officer's seats. An operator reported that during a takeoff, the First Officer's seat unlocked from its seat tracks and moved aft. The First Officer was unable to control the airplane and the Captain took over the controls to avoid a rejected takeoff. The unlocking of the seat from the seat tracks was caused by actuator damage, which was a result of incorrect adjustment of the seat's manual release lever cable, which allowed the clutch mechanism to only partially engage.

In addition, one operator reported that the Captain's seat could not be locked in position after the horizontal position of the seat was adjusted in flight. The seat became unlocked from the track and moved freely forward and aft. Control was given to the First Officer for approach and landing. An inspection found that the horizontal actuator output shaft had broken. When a horizontal actuator output shaft breaks, the pilot cannot prevent seat movement in a forward and aft direction and cannot lock the seat in position. A broken horizontal actuator output shaft is the result of high loads that exceed the design limits that are caused by a stalled motor that can occur due to high mechanical resistance to motion during powered operation of the seat. Foreign object debris (FOD) in the seat tracks is another condition that can result in a stalled motor and cause the horizontal actuator output shaft to break.

This condition, if not addressed, could result in uncommanded movement of the Captain's or First Officer's seat during a critical part of a flight, such as takeoff or landing, and could cause a flight control obstruction or unintended flight control input, which could lead to reduced controllability of the airplane.

We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3644, Revision 1, dated July 17, 2018. This service information describes procedures for an inspection to determine the part number, and, if applicable, the serial number of the Captain's and First Officer's seats and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include an inspection of each seat's fore/aft and vertical manual control levers for looseness; moving the adjustment nut, tightening the lock nut, readjusting the control lever, and doing a functional test; and installing a serviceable seat.

We also reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3653, Revision 1, dated October 19, 2018. This service information describes procedures for repetitive horizontal actuator identifications, repetitive checks of the HMS, a detailed inspection of the HMS, and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include clearing the seat tracks of FOD, an overhaul of the HMS, and checks of the HMS. The service information also describes procedures for an optional terminating action for the repetitive checks by installing a serviceable Captain's or First Officer's seat.

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 ADDRESSES section.

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 accomplishment of the actions identified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3644, Revision 1, dated July 17, 2018, described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information,” and except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

This proposed AD would also require accomplishment of the actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3653, Revision 1, dated October 19, 2018, described previously except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information,” and except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0188.

Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3644, Revision 1, dated July 17, 2018, specifies to do the actions within 72 months after the original issue date of the service bulletin, this proposed AD would require accomplishment of those actions within 36 months after the effective date of this AD. The 36-month compliance time corresponds with the compliance time in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3653, Revision 1, dated October 19, 2018. We have determined a 36-month compliance time is appropriate for doing the actions specified in this proposed AD. We have coordinated this difference with Boeing.

The effectivity of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3644, Revision 1, dated July 17, 2018; and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3653, Revision 1, dated October 19, 2018, is limited to The Boeing Company Model 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747-8F, and 747-8 series airplanes equipped with Ipeco part number series 3A090 and 3A258 Captain's and First Officer's powered seats, line number 699 and on. However, the applicability of this proposed AD includes all The Boeing Company Model 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747-8F, and 747-8 series airplanes. Because the affected parts are rotable parts, we have determined that these parts could later be installed on airplanes that were initially delivered with acceptable parts, thereby subjecting those airplanes to the unsafe condition. This difference has been coordinated with Boeing.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 95 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2019-0193; Product Identifier 2018-NM-159-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

We issued AD 2018-22-13, Amendment 39-19486 (83 FR 55617, November 7, 2018) (“AD 2018-22-13”), for certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. AD 2018-22-13 requires revising the AFM to provide the flightcrew with updated procedures related to inboard aileron fault operations. AD 2018-22-13 was prompted by a technical issue detected on the inboard aileron electro-hydrostatic actuators that caused potential erroneous monitoring of those actuators. We issued AD 2018-22-13 to address possible in-flight loss of inboard aileron control, consequent increased fuel consumption due to the resulting drag, and reduced control or performance of the airplane if one engine is also inoperative.

When we issued AD 2018-22-13, we stated that it was an interim action and we were considering additional rulemaking to require installing two different ATQCs to modify the ECAM procedures. We have determined that requiring those additional actions is necessary to address the identified unsafe condition. In addition, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, revised EASA AD 2018-0213, dated October 1, 2018 (which corresponds to AD 2018-22-13). The EASA AD revision added airplanes to the applicability. Although none of those additional airplanes are currently on the U.S. registry, they might be added in the future, and we have included them in the applicability of this proposed AD.

EASA has issued EASA AD 2018-0213R1, dated November 9, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0193.

Airbus issued Airbus A350 Temporary Revision (TR) 113, Issue 1.0, dated August 17, 2018, which provides updated procedures related to inboard aileron fault operations.

Airbus also issued the following service information:

Service Bulletin A350-31-P028, dated September 17, 2018, describes procedures for installing ATQC standard V4 for FWS standard S4/2.0.

Service Bulletin A350-31-P029, dated September 17, 2018, describes procedures for installing ATQC standard V4 for FWS standard S5/2.2.

Service Bulletin A350-31-P030, dated September 17, 2018, describes procedures for activating ECAM temporary change code No. 27AF.

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 ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. 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 on other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2018-22-13 and require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 11 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all known costs in our cost estimate.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 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.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the VOR Federal airway structure in the eastern United States to maintain the efficient flow of air traffic.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2019-0241; Airspace Docket No. 18-AEA-18 and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2019-0241; Airspace Docket No. 18-AEA-18”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. 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 http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA, 30337.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend VOR Federal airways V-260 and V-290 to remove segments linked to the Rainelle, WV, VOR, which is planned to be decommissioned. The proposed route changes are described below.

V-260: V-260 currently extends between the Charleston, WV, VOR/DME, and the Cofield, NC, VORTAC. The proposed change would remove the segments between the Charleston, WV, VOR/DME, and the Roanoke, VA, VOR/DME. The amended route would extend between the Roanoke, VA, VOR/DME and the Cofield, NC, VORTAC as currently charted.

V-290: V-290 currently consists of two parts. The first part extends between the Rainelle, WV, VOR, and the Flat Rock, VA, VORTAC. Then there is a gap in the route followed by the second part that extends between the Tar River, NC, VORTAC, and the intersection of radials from the Tar River, NC, VORTAC and the New Bern, NC, VOR/DME (depicted on aeronautical charts as the PUNGO, NC, navigation fix). At the PUNGO fix, V-290 joins existing area navigation route T-243. The proposed change would remove the portion of V-290 between the Rainelle, WV, VOR, and the Montebello, VA, VOR/DME. The amended route would therefore extend, in two parts, between the Montebello, VA, VOR/DME, and the Flat Rock, VA, VORTAC; and between the Tar River, NC, VORTAC, and the intersection of radials from the Tar River VORTAC and the New Bern VOR/DME, as currently charted.

The full amended route descriptions are listed in the “The Proposed Amendment” section, below.

Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV routes listed in this document would be subsequently published 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. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Please note that all comments received in response to this docket are considered part of the public record. They will, unless reasonable cause is given, be made available by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for public inspection online at http://www.regulations.gov . Such information includes personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) applies to all comments received. If you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made publicly available, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also place all of the personal identifying information you do not want made publicly available in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.

If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made publicly available, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify the confidential business information to be redacted within the comment.

Comments containing personal identifying information or confidential business information identified as directed above will be made publicly available in redacted form. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be made publicly available. Comments posted to http://www.regulations.gov may include any personal identifying information (such as name, address, and phone number) included in the text of your electronic submission that is not identified as directed above as confidential.

An electronic copy of this document and supplemental information to this proposed rule are available at http://www.regulations.gov for easy reference.

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this action is a formal rulemaking “on the record after opportunity for a hearing.” Such proceedings are conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551-559. 21 CFR 1308.41-1308.45; 21 CFR part 1316, subpart D. Interested persons may file requests for a hearing or notices of intent to participate in a hearing in conformity with the requirements of 21 CFR 1308.44(a) or (b), and include a statement of interest in the proceeding and the objections or issues, if any, concerning which the person desires to be heard. Any interested person may file a waiver of an opportunity for a hearing or to participate in a hearing together with a written statement regarding the interested person's position on the matters of fact and law involved in any hearing as set forth in 21 CFR 1308.44(c).

All requests for hearing and waivers of participation must be sent to the DEA using the address information provided above.

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) provides that proceedings for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of the scheduling of any drug or other substance may be initiated by the Attorney General (1) on his own motion; (2) at the request of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS);  1 or (3) on the petition of any interested party. 21 U.S.C. 811(a). This proposed action is supported by a recommendation from the Assistant Secretary for Health of the HHS (Assistant Secretary) and an evaluation of all other relevant data by the DEA. If finalized, this action would make permanent the existing temporary regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions of schedule I controlled substances on any person who handles or proposes to handle 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA.

On April 10, 2017, the DEA published an order in the Federal Register amending 21 CFR 1308.11(h) to temporarily place the six synthetic cannabinoids (SCs) methyl 2-(1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1 H -indazole-3-carboxamido)-3, 3-dimethylbutanoate [5F-ADB; 5F-MDMB-PINACA]; methyl 2-(1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1 H -indazole-3-carboxamido)-3-methylbutanoate [5F-AMB]; N -(adamantan-1-yl)-1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1 H -indazole-3-carboxamide [5F-APINACA, 5F-AKB48]; N -(1-amino-3,3-dimethyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(4-fluorobenzyl)-1 H -indazole-3-carboxamide [ADB-FUBINACA]; methyl 2-(1-(cyclohexylmethyl)-1 H -indole-3-carboxamido)-3,3-dimethylbutanoate [MDMB-CHMICA, MMB-CHMINACA] and methyl 2-(1-(4-fluorobenzyl)-1 H -indazole-3-carboxamido)-3,3-dimethylbutanoate [MDMB-FUBINACA], in schedule I of the CSA pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of 21 U.S.C. 811(h). 82 FR 17119. That temporary scheduling order was effective on the date of publication, and was based on findings by the Acting Administrator of the DEA (Acting Administrator) that the temporary scheduling of these six synthetic cannabinoids (SC) was necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). Section 201(h)(2) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2), requires that the temporary control of these substances expire two years from the effective date of the scheduling order, which was April 10, 2017. However, the CSA also provides that during the pendency of proceedings under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) with respect to the substance, the temporary scheduling of that substance could be extended for up to one year. Proceedings for the scheduling of a substance under 21 U.S.C. 811(a) may be initiated by the Attorney General (delegated to the Administrator of the DEA pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100) on his own motion, at the request of the Secretary of HHS, 2 or on the petition of any interested party. An extension of the existing temporary order is being ordered by the Acting Administrator in a separate action, and is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register .

The Acting Administrator, on his own motion pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), is initiating proceedings under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) to permanently schedule 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA. The DEA has gathered and reviewed the available information regarding the pharmacology, chemistry, trafficking, actual abuse, pattern of abuse, and the relative potential for abuse for these six SCs. On September 27, 2017, the Acting Administrator submitted a request to the Acting Assistant Secretary to provide the DEA with a scientific and medical evaluation of available information and a scheduling recommendation for 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA, and in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(b) and (c). On March 21, 2019, the Assistant Secretary submitted HHS's scientific and medical evaluation for these six substances to the Acting Administrator. Upon receipt of the scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation from the HHS, the DEA reviewed the documents and all other relevant data, and conducted its own eight-factor analysis of the abuse potential of 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(c).

As discussed in the background section, the Acting Administrator is initiating proceedings, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), to add 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA permanently to schedule I of the CSA. The DEA has reviewed the scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendations, received from HHS, and all other relevant data, and conducted its own eight-factor analysis of the abuse potential of 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(c). Included below is a brief summary of each factor as analyzed by the HHS and the DEA, and as considered by the DEA in its proposed scheduling action. Please note that both the DEA 8-Factor and HHS 8-Factor analyses and the Assistant Secretary's March 21, 2019, letter, are available in their entirety under the tab “Supporting Documents” of the public docket of this action at http://www.regulations.gov, under Docket Number “DEA-446.”

1. The Drug's Actual or Relative Potential for Abuse: The term “abuse” is not defined in the CSA. However, the legislative history of the CSA suggests that the DEA consider the following criteria in determining whether a particular drug or substance has a potential for abuse  3 :

HHS noted that people are taking 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and/or MDMB-FUBINACA in sufficient amounts to create a health hazard. Adverse effects observed following the ingestion of synthetic cannabinoids, including 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA, include nausea and vomiting, shortness of breath or depressed breathing, hypertension, tachycardia, chest pain, muscle twitching, acute renal failure, anxiety, agitation, psychosis, suicidal ideation, and/or cognitive impairment. SCs like 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA are easily accessible and difficult to detect in standard urine drug screens, which contributes to their popularity and high rates of abuse. In addition, poison centers continue to report the abuse of SCs and their associated products demonstrating that these substances remain a threat to both the short- and long-term public health and safety.

In their letter dated March 21, 2019, the HHS stated that there are no Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drug products containing 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA in the United States and there appear to be no legitimate sources for these substances as marketed drugs. Because 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA are not approved for medical use and are not formulated or available for clinical use, the human use of these substances is assumed to be on an individual's own initiative, rather than on the basis of medical advice from a practitioner licensed by law to administer drugs. Further, published scientific and medical literature, and reports from the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) and law enforcement indicate that individuals are taking these SCs on their own initiative, rather than on the basis of medical advice of a licensed practitioner.

HHS detailed that 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA, similar to schedule I SCs ( e.g., JWH-018), bind to and activate the CB1 cannabinoid receptor. As stated by HHS, 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA produced delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-like discriminative stimulus effects in rats trained to discriminate THC from vehicle control. DEA further notes that in drug discrimination studies conducted under the interagency agreement between DEA and FDA, 5F-APINACA also produced THC-like discriminative stimulus effects in rats trained to discriminate THC from vehicle control.

The abuse of 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA, similar to schedule I SCs, has been associated with various adverse health effects. As stated by the HHS, it is reasonable to assume that these six SCs have substantial capability to be a hazard to the health of the user and to the safety of the community.

2. Scientific Evidence of the Drug's Pharmacological Effects, if Known: 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA are SCs that have pharmacological effects similar to the schedule I hallucinogen THC and other temporarily and permanently controlled schedule I SCs. HHS reported on in vitro receptor binding and functional assays that were conducted with 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA. In addition, drug discrimination studies using Sprague Dawley rats investigating the THC-like stimulus effects of these SCs have been completed. These results indicate that 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA, similar to other schedule I SCs, bind to CB1 receptors, act as agonists at CB1 receptors, and produce THC-like discriminative stimulus effects.

3. The State of Current Scientific Knowledge Regarding the Drug or Other Substance: HHS noted that chemically, 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, and MDMB-FUBINACA can be described as 3-carboxamide indazole derivatives while MDMB-CHMICA belongs to the 3-carboxamide indol family. The DEA is not aware of any currently accepted medical uses for 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA or MDMB-FUBINACA. As mentioned by the HHS, 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA have not been approved by FDA for medical use in the United States. Absent an FDA approval, according to established DEA procedure and case law, “a drug has a currently accepted medical use if all of the following five elements have been satisfied.” (57 FR 10499; March 26, 1992).

i. The drug's chemistry must be known and reproducible.

ii. There must be adequate safety studies.

iii. There must be adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy.

iv. The drug must be accepted by qualified experts.

v. The scientific evidence must be widely available.

HHS evaluated these six SCs using this five-part test and determined that none of the six SCs has a “currently accepted medical use” in the United States.

4. Its History and Current Pattern of Abuse: All 6 SCs were identified internationally prior to their discovery within the United States. 5F-ADB was first identified in November 2014, in Japan in postmortem samples of an individual who died following use of an herbal product containing this substance. 5F-AMB was first identified in herbal smoking mixtures in Japan between November 2013 and May 2014. 5F-APINACA was first identified in South Korea beginning in late 2012. ADB-FUBINACA was first reported in the scientific literature in a patent by Pfizer in 2009 (compound 1) followed by popularity in Turkey in 2011 prior to its emergence on the United States illicit drug market in March, 2014. According to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), the first seizure of MDMB-CHMICA was on September 12, 2014. Germany also reported 9 deaths and 34 non-fatal intoxications involving MDMB- CHMICA from September 2014 through October 2014. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 40 kilograms of MDMB-CHMICA was identified in a seizure by Luxembourg Customs in December 2014. MDMB-FUBINACA was first identified as “MDMB/N/-Bz F” by Russian media outlets following the reported overdoses of 700 people and 25 deaths in October 2014.

In recent cases of overdoses or deaths, 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA have been encountered in the form of herbal products, similar to the SCs that have been previously encountered.

5. The Scope, Duration, and Significance of Abuse: Following multiple scheduling actions controlling SCs, law enforcement and health care professionals have encountered novel SCs including 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA differing only by small structural modifications intended to avoid prosecution while maintaining the pharmacological effects. National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS  4 ) details over 31,512 reports from forensic laboratories identifying 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA for a period from August 2012 through February 2019. In addition, System to Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence (STRIDE  5 ) and STARLiMS  6 have 1,685 reports involving 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA from 2012 through February 2019.

6. What, if Any, Risk There is to the Public Health: The HHS and DEA documented multiple cases where 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA have been identified in overdoses and/or cases involving death attributed to their abuse. Adverse health effects reported from these incidents involving 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and/or MDMB-FUBINACA included nausea, persistent vomiting, agitation, altered mental status, seizures, convulsions, loss of consciousness, cardio toxicity and/or death. By sharing pharmacological similarities with schedule I substances (THC, JWH-018 and other temporarily and permanently controlled schedule I SCs), 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and/or MDMB-FUBINACA, SCs with no approved medical use, pose serious risk to the abuser.

7. Its Psychic or Physiological Dependence Liability: As stated by HHS, 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA have pharmacological profiles that are similar to other schedule I SCs ( e.g., JWH-018, XLR11 and AKB-48) and therefore it is reasonable to assume that these six SCs possess physiological and psychological dependence liability similar to that of these schedule I SCs. There are no clinical studies evaluating psychic or physiological dependence liabilities specific for 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA.

8. Whether the Substance is an Immediate Precursor of a Substance Already Controlled Under the CSA: 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA are not immediate precursors of any controlled substance of the CSA as defined by 21 U.S.C 802(23).

Conclusion: After considering the scientific and medical evaluation conducted by the HHS, the HHS's recommendation, and the DEA's own eight-factor analysis, the DEA finds that the facts and all relevant data constitute substantial evidence of the potential for abuse of 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA. As such, the DEA hereby proposes to permanently schedule 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA as controlled substances under the CSA.

The CSA establishes five schedules of controlled substances known as schedules I, II, III, IV, and V. The CSA also outlines the findings required to place a drug or other substance in any particular schedule. 21 U.S.C. 812(b). After consideration of the analysis and recommendation of the Assistant Secretary for HHS and review of all other available data, the Acting Administrator of the DEA, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a) and 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1), finds that:

1. 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA have a high potential for abuse that is comparable to other schedule I substances such as THC and JWH-018;

2. 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; and

3. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA under medical supervision.

Based on these findings, the Acting Administrator of the DEA concludes that methyl 2-(1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1 H -indazole-3-carboxamido)-3,3-dimethylbutanoate [5F-ADB; 5F-MDMB-PINACA]; methyl 2-(1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1 H -indazole-3-carboxamido)-3-methylbutanoate [5F-AMB]; N -(adamantan-1-yl)-1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1 H -indazole-3-carboxamide [5F-APINACA, 5F-AKB48]; N -(1-amino-3,3-dimethyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(4-fluorobenzyl)-1 H -indazole-3-carboxamide [ADB-FUBINACA]; methyl 2-(1-(cyclohexylmethyl)-1 H -indole-3-carboxamido)-3,3-dimethylbutanoate [MDMB-CHMICA, MMB-CHMINACA] and methyl 2-(1-(4-fluorobenzyl)-1 H -indazole-3-carboxamido)-3,3-dimethylbutanoate [MDMB-FUBINACA], including their salts, isomers and salts of isomers, whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible, warrant control in schedule I of the CSA. 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1).

If this rule is finalized as proposed, 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA would continue  7 to be subject to the CSA's schedule I regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, importing, exporting, research, and conduct of instructional activities, including the following:

1. Registration. Any person who handles (manufactures, distributes, dispenses, imports, exports, engages in research, or conducts instructional activities or chemical analysis with, or possesses) 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA, or who desires to handle 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA, is required to be registered with the DEA to conduct such activities pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822, 823, 957, and 958 and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1301 and 1312.

2. Security. 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA or MDMB-FUBINACA are subject to schedule I security requirements and must be handled and stored pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 821, 823 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.71-1301.93.

3. Labeling and Packaging. All labels and labeling for commercial containers of 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA must be in compliance with 21 U.S.C. 825 and 958(e), and be in accordance with 21 CFR part 1302.

4. Quota. Only registered manufacturers are permitted to manufacture 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA in accordance with a quota assigned pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 826 and in accordance with 21 CFR part 1303.

5. Inventory. Any person registered with the DEA to handle 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA must have an initial inventory of all stocks of controlled substances (including 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA) on hand on the date the registrant first engages in the handling of controlled substances pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11.

After the initial inventory, every DEA registrant must take a new inventory of all stocks of controlled substances (including 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA) on hand every two years, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11.

6. Records and Reports. Every DEA registrant is required to maintain records and submit reports with respect to 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958(e), and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1304 and 1312.

7. Order Forms. Every DEA registrant who distributes 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA is required to comply with the order form requirements, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 828, and 21 CFR part 1305.

8. Importation and Exportation. All importation and exportation of 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA must be in compliance with 21 U.S.C. 952, 953, 957, and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR part 1312.

9. Liability. Any activity involving 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA or MDMB-FUBINACA not authorized by, or in violation of, the CSA or its implementing regulations is unlawful, and could subject the person to administrative, civil, and/or criminal sanctions.

In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this proposed scheduling action is subject to formal rulemaking procedures performed “on the record after opportunity for a hearing,” which are conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. The CSA sets forth the criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Such actions are exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to section 3(d)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and the principles reaffirmed in Executive Order 13563.

This proposed regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.

This proposed rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132. The proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This proposed rule does not have tribal implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13175. It does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.

This proposed rule does not meet the definition of an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action, and the repeal and cost offset requirements of Executive Order 13771 have not been triggered. OMB has previously determined that formal rulemaking actions concerning the scheduling of controlled substances, such as this rule, are not significant regulatory actions under Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

The Acting Administrator, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-602, has reviewed this proposed rule and by approving it certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. On April 10, 2017, the DEA published an order to temporarily place these six SCs in schedule I of the CSA pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of 21 U.S.C. 811(h). The DEA estimates that all entities handling or planning to handle these SCs have already established and implemented the systems and processes required to handle 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA or MDMB-FUBINACA. There are currently 28 registrations authorized to handle 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and/or MDMB-FUBINACA specifically, as well as a number of registered analytical labs that are authorized to handle schedule I controlled substances generally. These 28 registrations represent 24 entities, of which 14 are small entities. Therefore, the DEA estimates 14 small entities are affected by this proposed rule.

A review of the 28 registrations indicates that all entities that currently handle 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA or MDMB-FUBINACA also handle other schedule I controlled substances, and have established and implemented (or maintain) the systems and processes required to handle 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA or MDMB-FUBINACA. Therefore, the DEA anticipates that this proposed rule will impose minimal or no economic impact on any affected entities; and thus, will not have a significant economic impact on any of the 14 affected small entities. Therefore, the DEA has concluded that this proposed rule will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities.

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., the DEA has determined and certifies that this action would not result in any Federal mandate that may result “in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year * * *.” Therefore, neither a Small Government Agency Plan nor any other action is required under UMRA of 1995.

This action does not impose a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. This action would not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

For the reasons set out above, the DEA proposes to amend 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:

Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, State laws and regulations that govern surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the Act and consistent with the Federal regulations. See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the West Virginia program on January 21, 1981. You can find background information on the West Virginia program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the West Virginia program in the January 21, 1981, Federal Register (46 FR 5915). You can also find later actions concerning the West Virginia program and program amendments at 30 CFR 948.10, 948.12, 948.13, 948.15, and 948.16.

By letter (Administrative Record No. 1608) dated May 3, 2017, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. ). The full text of the program amendment is available for you to read at the locations listed above under ADDRESSES .

Enrolled Senate Bill 687 seeks to modify bond releases and bonding requirements and to modify the requirements for how money is to be paid from the Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund to assure a reliable source of capital and operating expenses for the treatment of discharges from bond-forfeited sites. Senate Bill 687 was adopted by the West Virginia Legislature on April 8, 2017, and approved by the Governor on April 26, 2017. These changes cannot take effect for the purposes of the State program until approved as an amendment by OSMRE pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(g). WVDEP requests that we approve the following changes to the approved State program:

Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the State program.

If you submit written or electronic comments on the proposed rule, they should be specific, confined to issues pertinent to the proposed regulations, and explain the reason for any recommended change(s). We appreciate any and all comments, but those most useful and likely to influence decisions on the final regulations will be those that either involve personal experience or include citations to and analyses of SMCRA, its legislative history, its implementing regulations, case law, other pertinent State or Federal laws or regulations, technical literature, or other relevant publications.

We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see DATES ) or sent to an address other than those listed (see ADDRESSES ) will be included in the docket for this rulemaking and considered.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4:00 p.m., e.d.t. on April 23, 2019. If you are disabled and need reasonable accommodations to attend a public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . We will arrange the location and time of the hearing with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to speak, we will not hold a hearing.

To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at the public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard.

If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . All such meetings are open to the public and, if possible, we will post notices of meetings at the locations listed under ADDRESSES . We will make a written summary of each meeting a part of the administrative record.

Pursuant to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidance dated October 12, 1993, the approval of state program amendments is exempted from OMB review under Executive Order 12866.

When a State submits a program amendment to OSMRE for review, our regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require us to publish a notice in the Federal Register indicating receipt of the proposed amendment, its text or a summary of its terms, and an opportunity for public comment. We conclude our review of the proposed amendment after the close of the public comment period and determine whether the amendment should be approved, approved in part, or not approved. At that time, we will also make the determinations and certifications required by the various laws and executive orders governing the rulemaking process and include them in the final rule.

This proposed rule will permit coverage of services prescribed by TRICARE-authorized individual allied health professionals for PT, OT, and ST. The current language of Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), § 199.4(c)(3)(x) states that PT, OT, and ST may be cost-shared when services are prescribed and monitored by a physician, certified physician assistant, or certified nurse practitioner. In addition, 32 CFR 199.6(c)(3)(iii)(K)( 2 ) currently states that the services of other individual paramedical providers, such as licensed registered PT, OT, and ST, can be considered for benefits on a fee-for-service basis only if the beneficiary is referred by a physician, certified physician assistant, or certified nurse practitioner and a physician, certified physician assistant, or certified nurse practitioner provides continuing and ongoing oversight and supervision of the program or episode of treatment provided by these individual paramedical providers. As a result, otherwise authorized PT, OT, and ST services for TRICARE beneficiaries are not covered benefits when other Allied Health Professionals, such as Doctors of Podiatry, even when acting within their scope of license, prescribe the services.

State governments generally regulate the licensure and practice of health care professionals, and DoD limits TRICARE benefits coverage to services and supplies furnished by otherwise authorized TRICARE individual professional providers performing within the scope of their state licenses or certifications. State scope of practice laws vary with regard to the range of services, and some include the authority to prescribe PT, OT, and ST. After assessing the information available, DoD has determined that it is unnecessarily restrictive not to cover otherwise authorized PT, OT, and ST services for TRICARE beneficiaries merely because the services are ordered by a non-physician. Therefore, the regulation is being amended to allow TRICARE coverage of PT, OT, and ST services when ordered by other Allied Health Professionals who are TRICARE authorized providers and acting within the scope of their state license or certificate.

This rule allows TRICARE coverage of otherwise authorized PT, OT, and ST services when prescribed by TRICARE authorized allied health professionals when the allied health professional is acting within the scope of his/her license.

The primary impact of this rule will result in less time and expense spent by beneficiaries and referring providers to obtain necessary medical services and supplies. Almost 10,000 beneficiaries visited a primary care provider after seeking care from a podiatrist, but prior to PT services, in 2017. With an average copay/cost-share of $24 across networks and TRICARE programs, this rule will conservatively save beneficiaries up to $230,000 per year in cost-sharing and will conservatively save TRICARE $1.1 million per year as a result of reduced visits to referring providers.

Once beneficiaries initiate an episode of care with an Other Allied Health Professional for a covered disease or condition, they need not return to their Primary Care Manager for an office visit to obtain an examination and referral for PT, OT, or ST services. Assuming two hours by appointment (appointment, travel, waiting room, exam room), beneficiaries will save approximately 20,000 hours each year by not having to visit their referring provider prior to seeking PT, OT, or ST services. Referring providers will also save time, approximately 2,200 hours (15 minutes for a podiatrist to consult with a referring provider regarding a PT prescription) each year, as a result of reduced coordination and paperwork.

The proposed amendment to cover PT, OT, and ST services, when prescribed by a TRICARE-authorized Allied Health Professionals acting within the scope of their license, is not expected to increase the amount of otherwise covered PT, OT, and ST services. This is because prescriptions for such services are currently being written by those providers authorized to do so under the TRICARE program or those providers are countersigning prescriptions from Allied Health Professionals, such as a podiatrist. The DoD does anticipate, however, that there may be a marginal increase in administrative costs to accommodate changes to our contractors' systems, although the overall result of this change will create an efficiency in the process.

This proposed rule does not create new costs to the government, because it falls under the Transfer Payment clause in accordance with OMB Circular A-4. As this rule proposes, TRICARE payments for physical, occupational or speech therapy services provided to military beneficiaries and prescribed by Other Allied Health Professionals, represents an “Insurance Payment” as described in OMB Circular A-4.

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 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, distribute 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,” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule is not anticipated to have an annual effect on the economy of $100M or more.

Accordingly, this rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

E.O. 13771 seeks to control costs associated with the government imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations and to reduce regulations that impose such costs. Consistent with the analysis of transfer payments under OMB Circular A-4, this proposed rule does not involve regulatory costs subject to E.O. 13771.

Under the Congressional Review Act, a major rule may not take effect until at least 60 days after submission to Congress of a report regarding the rule. A major rule is one that would have an annual effect on the economy of $100M or more or have certain other impacts.

This proposed rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that each Federal agency analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses if a rule has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. This proposed rule is not an economically significant regulatory action, and it will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, it is certified that this rule is not subject to the requirements of the RFA.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in, any one year of $100M, as of 1995 exchange rate, updated annually for inflation. That threshold level is currently approximately $140M. This proposed rule will not mandate any requirements for state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

This rulemaking does not contain a “collection of information” requirement, and will not impose additional information collection requirements on the public under Public Law 96-511, “Paperwork Reduction Act” (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

This proposed rule has been examined for its impact under Executive Order 13132, and it does not contain policies that have federalism implications that would have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of Government. Therefore, consultation with State and local officials is not required.

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 199 is proposed to be amended as follows:

In the “Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) Proficiency Testing Regulations Related to Analytes and Acceptable Performance” proposed rule that appeared in the February 4, 2019 Federal Register (84 FR 1536), we solicited public comments on proposed changes to current proficiency testing (PT) analytes, including acceptance limits, in addition to technical changes to the PT referral regulations to more closely align them with the CLIA statute.

We received an inquiry from several PT programs regarding the 60-day comment period for the proposed rule. The commenters stated that providing all stakeholders additional time to review and comment would allow them to conduct a more comprehensive review in order to develop detailed responses to the technical aspects of this proposed rule given that it would represent the first comprehensive change to the PT regulations since the implementation of CLIA in 1992.

In order to maximize the opportunity for the public to provide meaningful input to CMS and CDC, we believe that it is important to allow additional time for the public to prepare comments on the proposed rule. In addition, we believe that granting an extension to the public comment period in this instance would further our overall objective to obtain public input on the potential changes related to PT that we are considering. Therefore, we are extending the comment period for the proposed rule for an additional 60 days.

The CPS fishery in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the West Coast is managed under the CPS FMP. The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) developed the FMP pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. The six species managed under the CPS FMP are Pacific sardine, Pacific mackerel, jack mackerel, northern anchovy (northern and central subpopulations), market squid, and krill. The CPS FMP is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 660, subpart I.

Management unit stocks in the CPS FMP are classified under three management categories: Active, monitored, and prohibited harvest species. Stocks in the active category (Pacific sardine and Pacific mackerel) are managed under catch limits set using regular stock assessments and periodic or annual adjustments of target harvest levels based on those stock assessments. Fisheries for these stocks have biologically significant levels of catch, or biological or socioeconomic considerations requiring this type of relatively intense harvest management procedures. In contrast, stocks in the monitored category (jack mackerel, northern anchovy, and market squid  1 ), are managed under long-term catch limits and annual qualitative reviews of available abundance data without regular stock assessments or annual adjustments to target harvest levels. Fisheries for monitored stocks do not have biologically significant catch levels and, therefore, do not require intensive harvest management. As a result, monitored stocks have been adequately managed by tracking landings and examining available abundance indices. Species in both categories may be subject to management measures such as catch allocation, gear regulations, closed areas or closed seasons. For example, trip limits and a limited entry permit program apply to all CPS finfish. The prohibited harvest species category is comprised only of krill, which is subject to a complete prohibition on targeting and retention.

In September 2011, NMFS approved Amendment 13 to the CPS FMP, which modified the framework process used to set and adjust fishery specifications and for setting ACLs and accountability measures (AMs). Amendment 13 conformed the CPS FMP with the 2007 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard 1 (NS1) guidelines at 50 CFR 600.310, which for the first time required ACLs be established for management unit species (with exceptions). Specifically, Amendment 13 maintained the existing reference points and the primary harvest control rules for the monitored stocks (jack mackerel, northern anchovy and market squid), including the large uncertainty buffer built into the ABC control rule for the finfish stocks. Amendment 13 established a management framework under which the OFL for each monitored stock is set equal to its existing maximum sustainable yield (MSY) value, if available, and ABC values are set at 25 percent of OFL, to provide a 75-percent scientific uncertainty buffer. ACLs are then set either equal to or lower than the ABC; annual catch targets (ACTs), if deemed necessary, can be set less than or equal to the ACL, primarily to account for potential management uncertainty.

Compared to the management framework for stocks in the active category, which uses annual estimates of biomass to calculate annual harvest levels, the ACLs for the monitored finfish stocks are not based on annual estimates of biomass or any single estimate of biomass. As described above, ACLs for monitored finfish are set at the ABC levels, which are no higher than 25 percent of the OFL. OFLs are set equal to estimates of MSY—an estimate that is intended to reflect the largest average fishing mortality rate or yield that can be taken from a stock over the long term if contained in the CPS FMP or set based on a stock specific method if deemed more appropriate. Although the control rules and harvest policies for monitored CPS stocks are simpler than the active category control rules, the inclusion of a large non-discretionary buffer between the OFL and ABC both protects the stock from overfishing and allows for a relatively small sustainable harvest. In recognition of the low fishing effort and landings for these stocks, the Council chose this type of passive management framework for some finfish stocks in the FMP because it has proven sufficient to prevent overfishing while allowing for sustainable annual harvests, even when the year-to-year biomasses of these stocks fluctuate.

On January 18, 2018, in Oceana v. Ross, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment to Oceana, vacating OFL, ABC, ACL for the central subpopulation of northern anchovy (hereafter, simply “central anchovy”). This ruling, as well as subsequent court rulings require NMFS to re-establish these reference points through a final rule no later than late May. Therefore, NMFS proposes to implement a new OFL, ABC and ACL that would be in effect beginning in the 2019 fishing year and that would remain in place until new scientific information becomes available to warrant changes.

To determine these new reference points, NMFS reviewed existing data sources, including historical estimates of biomass from the last stock assessment NMFS completed for central anchovy in 1995, as well as more recent NMFS estimates of relative abundance and analyses for determining a new long-term OFL for central anchovy, to use within the FMP's default ABC control rule for monitored stocks. We determined that an OFL and ABC that deviated from the management approach set in the FMP for stocks in the monitored category would be beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

After this review, NMFS determined that with the limited time to review and analyze complex approaches for setting these reference points, the most appropriate path at this time for setting an OFL for central anchovy in accordance with the FMP is to use an approach similar to the approach used by the Council, and approved by NMFS, for developing reference points for OFL and ABC for the northern subpopulation of northern anchovy (NSNA) in 2010. When the Council developed the OFL and ABC for NSNA a numerical MSY value was not available to set as the OFL. Therefore, instead of basing the OFL on an estimate of MSY, the OFL was calculated by multiplying the average of the only two available biomass estimates by the F MSY ( i.e., fishing mortality at MSY) used for Pacific mackerel in the CPS FMP. Pacific mackerel was deemed an appropriate fishing mortality proxy because the life history characteristics of NSNA should allow it to support a fishing rate at least as high as Pacific mackerel while sustaining the population. The established uncertainty buffer of 75 percent was then applied to calculate the ABC for NSNA.

Consistent with the approach used to set the NSNA reference points, the proposed OFL, ABC, and ACL in this rule are based on averaging three of the available four recent estimates of the relative abundance for central anchovy from NMFS surveys and an estimate of the rate of fishing mortality for central anchovy at MSY. 2 The abundance estimates are from the 2016 and 2018 NMFS acoustic-trawl method (ATM) surveys, which are 151,558 mt and 723,826 mt respectively and the 2017 NMFS daily egg production method (DEPM) survey, which is 308,173 mt. An ATM estimate was also available for 2017. However, NMFS evaluated the 2017 estimate compared to the other ATM estimates, and decided, for this rulemaking, to exclude it from the analysis to generate catch limits. The reason for this was that the ATM survey in the summer of 2017 was focused off the northern portion of the U.S. West Coast as well as the west coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada, and was not designed to sample the complete range of central anchovy. The principle objectives of this survey were to gather data on the northern stock of Pacific sardine, and to some extent, the northern stock of northern anchovy, and therefore the survey chose not to sample south of Morro Bay, California, which is area where central anchovy are typically found.

The fishing mortality rate estimate is from analysis the SWFSC completed in 2016 as part of an effort examining minimum stock size thresholds for CPS. This analysis used the most current time-series data available for potentially deriving an F MSY which comes from the last model-based stock assessment for central anchovy completed for formal management purposes (Jacobson et al. 1995). This analysis produced estimates of F MSY based on eight alternative models. We have used the average of the four best fitting models from that work to calculate an E MSY of 0.239. The methodology results in a proposed OFL of 94,290 metric tons (mt), an ABC of 23,573 mt, and an ACL of 23,573 mt.

In determining whether to use the abundance estimates mentioned above, we considered the fact that scientific reviews presented to the Council at its April 2018 meeting stated that because the acoustic estimates cannot be considered absolute estimates of biomass, two things would need to occur before they are used to directly inform management, unless they are used as a data source in an integrated stock assessment model, including: Addressing the area shoreward of the survey that is not sampled, and conducting a management strategy evaluation to determine the appropriate way to incorporate an index of abundance into a harvest control rule. However, because the acoustic estimates represent recent information on the stock and can be considered minimum estimates of the stock size, we are comfortable at this time that using these estimates in a time series to set an OFL will, in combination with reducing the OFL by 75 percent to set the ABC and ACL, prevent overfishing. Therefore, NMFS determined that using these ATM estimates in the manner described above, represent the best available information for determining the proposed reference points in this rule.

The Council developed, and NMFS approved, the monitored stock management control rules and overfishing specification process as consistent with the best scientific information available. Monitored stock management, including the buffer between the OFL and ABC built into the harvest policy for CPS stocks, appropriately accounts for the various types of scientific uncertainty around the OFL estimate. NMFS has determined that maintaining this approach for the proposed OFL and ABC in this action is sufficient to prevent overfishing for the central anchovy stock. We are proposing that the ACL be set equal to the ABC. Setting a lower ACL or establishing an additional ACT to account for management uncertainty is unnecessary because managers have the ability to track the landings of this fishery and close the fishery if necessary to ensure the ACL is not exceeded.

The proposed ACL would sufficiently limit harvests of central anchovy on an annual basis and prevent overfishing, as each year the total harvest of the stock will be assessed against the ACL. These reference points would remain in place until changed according to the FMP framework. If the ACL is reached the fishery would be closed until the beginning of the next fishing season. The NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator would publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the date of any such closure.

This action also proposes a minor revision to section § 660.509 to clarify the NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator's authority to close a CPS fishery by announcement in a notice published in the Federal Register , per the CPS FMP, when an ACL is reached. Currently this section describes the Regional Administrator's authority for implementing in-season closures only when a directed fishery allocation or incidental allocation is reached.

NMFS is issuing these proposed regulations under Magnuson-Stevens Act § 305(d), 16 U.S.C. 1855(d).

Pursuant to the procedures established to implement section 6 of E.O. 12866, the Office of Management and Budget has determined that this proposed rule is not significant.

An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the RFA (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble and is not repeated here. The results of the analysis are stated below. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ).

For Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.

The action being implemented through this proposed rule is the establishment of a new OFL, ABC, and ACL for the central anchovy.

The small entities that would be affected by the proposed action are the vessels that harvest central anchovy as part of the West Coast CPS purse seine fleet. The average annual per vessel revenue in 2016 for the West Coast CPS finfish small purse seine fleet, as well as the few vessels that target anchovy off of Oregon and Washington, was below $11 million; therefore, all of these vessels are considered small businesses under the RFA. Because each affected vessel is a small business, this proposed rule is considered to equally affect all of these small entities in the same manner. Therefore, this rule would not create disproportionate costs between small and large vessels/businesses.

To evaluate whether this proposed rule could potentially reduce the profitability of affected vessels, NMFS compared current and average recent historical landings to the proposed ACL (maximum fishing level for each year). The proposed ACL for central anchovy is 23,573 mt. In 2018, approximately 17,040 mt of central anchovy were landed. The annual average harvest from 2009 to 2018 for central anchovy was 7,020 mt. Central anchovy landings have been well below the proposed ACL in 8 of the past 10 years. Therefore, although the establishment of a new ACL for this stock is considered a new management measure for the fishery, and is lower than the previous ACL level of 25,000 mt, this proposed action should not result in changes in current fishery operations. As a result, it is unlikely that the ACL proposed in this rule will limit the potential profitability to the fleet from catching central anchovy and thus would not impose significant economic impacts.

The central anchovy fishery is a component of the CPS purse seine fishery off the U.S. West Coast, which generally fishes a complex of species that also includes the fisheries for Pacific sardine, Pacific mackerel, jack mackerel, and market squid. Currently there are 58 vessels permitted in the Federal CPS limited entry fishery off California. Annually, 32 of these 58 CPS vessels landed anchovy in recent years.

CPS finfish vessels typically harvest a number of other species, including Pacific sardine, Pacific mackerel, and market squid, making the central anchovy fishery only one component of a multi-species CPS fishery. Therefore, the revenue derived from this fishery is only part of determining the overall revenue for a majority of the vessels in the CPS fleet, and the economic impact to the fleet from the proposed action cannot be viewed in isolation. CPS vessels typically rely on multiple species for profitability because abundance of the central anchovy stock, like the other CPS stocks, is highly associated with ocean conditions and seasonality. Variability in ocean conditions and season results in variability in the timing and location of CPS harvest throughout the year. Because each species responds to ocean conditions in its own way, not all CPS stocks are likely to be abundant at the same time. Therefore, as abundance levels and markets fluctuate, the CPS fishery as a whole has relied on a group of species for its annual revenues.

NMFS reviewed and evaluated other methods and data sources to update the estimate of MSY or develop a new long-term OFL. However, NMFS had limited time to fully review these types of methods; therefore, an alternative such as this was not fully developed. The CPS FMP also states that the ACL is set equal to the ABC or lower if determined necessary to prevent overfishing or for other optimum yield considerations not already build into the ABC control rule. The proposed action sets the ACL equal to the ABC which is the maximum level it can be set; other alternatives for the ACL could only set it lower, creating a higher potential for negative economic impact on the directly affected fishermen. Additionally, the proposed action maintains the management approach set in the FMP for stocks in the monitored category, which dictates how the OFL and ABC can be set, thereby limiting the alternatives for these values.

Thus, no significant alternatives to this proposed rule exist that would accomplish the stated objectives of the applicable statutes while minimizing any significant economic impact of this proposed rule on the affected small entities. However, as stated above, this proposed rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on the regulated fishermen.

This action does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is proposed to be amended as follows: