| Page Range | 30327-30604 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 80 FR 30331 - Termination of Emergency With Respect to the Risk of Nuclear Proliferation Created by the Accumulation of a Large Volume of Weapons-Usable Fissile Material in the Territory of the Russian Federation | |
| 80 FR 30329 - Prayer for Peace, Memorial Day, 2015 | |
| 80 FR 30327 - National Hurricane Preparedness Week, 2015 | |
| 80 FR 30432 - Double-Crested Cormorant Management Plan To Reduce Predation of Juvenile Salmonids in the Columbia River Estuary Final Environmental Impact Statement; Record of Decision | |
| 80 FR 30389 - Special Conditions: Pratt and Whitney Canada, PW210A; Flat 30-Second and 2-Minute One Engine Inoperative Rating | |
| 80 FR 30545 - Advisory Group to the Internal Revenue Service Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division (TE/GE); Meeting | |
| 80 FR 30544 - Low Income Taxpayer Clinic Grant Program; Availability of 2016 Grant Application Package; Correction | |
| 80 FR 30542 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Notice 2015-XX | |
| 80 FR 30541 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8931 | |
| 80 FR 30543 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 80 FR 30452 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Hot Mix Asphalt Facilities (Renewal) | |
| 80 FR 30453 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production (Renewal) | |
| 80 FR 30544 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 80 FR 30501 - Combined License Application for Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 6 and 7 | |
| 80 FR 30455 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; RFS2 Voluntary RIN Quality Assurance Program | |
| 80 FR 30333 - Final Affordability Determination-Energy Efficiency Standards; Correction | |
| 80 FR 30438 - Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review; 2014 | |
| 80 FR 30434 - Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc.; Subzone 29F (Automotive Battery Management Systems); Harrodsburg, Kentucky | |
| 80 FR 30538 - Pipeline Safety: Information Collection Activities, Renewal of Annual Report for Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Systems | |
| 80 FR 30465 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 30497 - Advisory Committee on Veterans' Employment, Training, and Employer Outreach (ACVETEO) | |
| 80 FR 30482 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; National Flood Insurance Program Call Center and Agent Referral Enrollment Form | |
| 80 FR 30539 - National Freight Advisory Committee | |
| 80 FR 30476 - West Virginia; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 80 FR 30481 - West Virginia; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 80 FR 30481 - Connecticut; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 80 FR 30480 - West Virginia; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 80 FR 30480 - Kentucky; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 80 FR 30459 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
| 80 FR 30352 - Removal of Obsolete Regulations | |
| 80 FR 30479 - Kentucky; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 80 FR 30481 - Georgia; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 80 FR 30477 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 80 FR 30525 - Privacy Act; System of Records: Official Gift Records and Gift Donor Vetting Records, State-80 | |
| 80 FR 30527 - Culturally Significant Object Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Pleasure and Piety: The Art of Joachim Wtewael” Exhibition | |
| 80 FR 30527 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “The Holocaust” Exhibition | |
| 80 FR 30502 - Amendment to Postal Product | |
| 80 FR 30473 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 30472 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 30472 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 30487 - Call For Nominations and Comments for the 2015 National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Oil and Gas Lease Sale | |
| 80 FR 30458 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 80 FR 30457 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 80 FR 30447 - Secretary of Energy Advisory Board | |
| 80 FR 30447 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah | |
| 80 FR 30461 - Federal Procurement Data System Product Service Code Manual Update | |
| 80 FR 30457 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 30541 - Additional Designations, Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act | |
| 80 FR 30451 - Cumberland System of Projects | |
| 80 FR 30497 - Records Schedules; Availability and Request for Comments | |
| 80 FR 30487 - Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act | |
| 80 FR 30440 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 30492 - Levi Strauss & Company Eugene, Oregon; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration | |
| 80 FR 30490 - Pixel Playground, Inc., Woodland Hills, California; Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration | |
| 80 FR 30490 - Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance | |
| 80 FR 30489 - Avery Dennison, Retail Branding and Information Solutions (Rbis) Division, Including On-Site Leased Workers of Adecco, Lenior, North Carolina; Leased Workers of Manpower and Zero Chaos, Working On-Site at Avery Dennison, Retail Branding and Information Solutions (RBIS) Division, Lenior, North Carolina; Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration | |
| 80 FR 30490 - A Schulman, Inc. Including Workers Whose Wages Are Reported Under Ferro Corp. Stryker, Ohio; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance | |
| 80 FR 30492 - Hewlett-Packard Co. HP Enterprise Group Americas Supply Chain Houston Manufacturing Including On-Site Leased Workers From Advantage Technical Resourcing, Bucher and Christian Consulting, Inc., CBSI LLC, Manpower, National Employment Service, Pinnacle Technical Resources, Inc., and Staff Management (a Subsidiary of Seaton, LLC) Houston, Texas; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance | |
| 80 FR 30488 - Investigations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance | |
| 80 FR 30493 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; YouthBuild Reporting System | |
| 80 FR 30441 - Revised Non-Foreign Overseas Per Diem Rates | |
| 80 FR 30539 - Proposed Information Collections; Comment Request (No. 53) | |
| 80 FR 30379 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Small-Mesh Multispecies Specifications | |
| 80 FR 30367 - Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Regulations | |
| 80 FR 30441 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 30528 - Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Meeting | |
| 80 FR 30528 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received | |
| 80 FR 30527 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received | |
| 80 FR 30448 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725G); Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 30451 - Southern Company Services, Inc.; KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company; The Empire District Electric Company; Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc.; v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Complaint | |
| 80 FR 30450 - Town of Stuyvesant, New York; Albany Engineering Corporation; Notice of Teleconference To Discuss Article 301 Extension of Time Request and Notice Soliciting Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene on Article 301 Extension of Time Request | |
| 80 FR 30485 - Receipt of an Incidental Take Permit Application for Participation in the Oil and Gas Industry Conservation Plan for the American Burying Beetle in Oklahoma | |
| 80 FR 30391 - Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 30463 - NIOSH List of Antineoplastic and Other Hazardous Drugs in Healthcare Settings: Proposed Additions to the NIOSH Hazardous Drug List 2016; Request for Comment | |
| 80 FR 30529 - Agency Information Collection Activities; New Information Collection Request: State Commercial Driver's License Program Plan | |
| 80 FR 30532 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection; Training Certification for Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators | |
| 80 FR 30466 - Radiation Biodosimetry Devices; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Extension of Comment Period | |
| 80 FR 30470 - Integrated Food Safety System Online Collaboration Development | |
| 80 FR 30353 - Medical Devices; Gastroenterology-Urology Devices; Classification of the Vibrator for Climax Control of Premature Ejaculation | |
| 80 FR 30435 - | |
| 80 FR 30383 - Liquidity Coverage Ratio: Treatment of U.S. Municipal Securities as High-Quality Liquid Assets | |
| 80 FR 30483 - Habitat Conservation Plan for the Morro Shoulderband Snail; Kroll Parcel, Community of Los Osos, San Luis Obispo County, California | |
| 80 FR 30467 - Pediatric Studies of Meropenem Conducted in Accordance With the Public Health Service Act; Availability of Summary Report and Requested Labeling Changes | |
| 80 FR 30529 - Notice to Rescind Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement: Polk County, IA | |
| 80 FR 30495 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Notification of Methane Detected in Underground Metal and Nonmetal Mine Atmospheres | |
| 80 FR 30494 - Proposed Information Collection; Underground Retorts | |
| 80 FR 30494 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Refuge Alternatives for Underground Coal Mines | |
| 80 FR 30439 - Request for Information Regarding Online Platforms To Promote Federal Science and Technology Facilities, Products, and Services | |
| 80 FR 30485 - Proposed Collection of Information Collection: Tribal Evaluation of Indian Trust Programs Compacted by Tribes | |
| 80 FR 30519 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Modify the Appointment Process Utilized by the Exchange | |
| 80 FR 30511 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Modify the Appointment Process Utilized by the Exchange | |
| 80 FR 30508 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To List and Trade the Shares of the Tuttle Tactical Management Multi-Strategy Income ETF of ETFis Series Trust I | |
| 80 FR 30505 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Clarify That Participants Are Required To Participate in Operational Testing by DTC, Including Testing of DTC's Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plans | |
| 80 FR 30506 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Delay Implementation of Rule 15.2A | |
| 80 FR 30514 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rules Related to Order Tickets | |
| 80 FR 30503 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Regarding Audit Trail Retention Requirements | |
| 80 FR 30511 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Penny Pilot Options Fees and Rebates | |
| 80 FR 30519 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto, Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of the SPDR SSgA Global Managed Volatility ETF Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 | |
| 80 FR 30517 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule | |
| 80 FR 30487 - Saccharin From China | |
| 80 FR 30488 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act | |
| 80 FR 30355 - Ratemaking Procedures for Civil Reserve Air Fleet Contracts | |
| 80 FR 30399 - Proposed Priority-Technical Assistance Center for Vocational Rehabilitation Agency Program Evaluation and Quality Assurance | |
| 80 FR 30333 - Organization; Institution Stockholder Voting Procedures | |
| 80 FR 30499 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review; Reinstatement of a Previously Approved Collection; Comment Request; Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards | |
| 80 FR 30431 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 30432 - Dow AgroSciences LLC: Availability of a Preliminary Plant Pest Risk Assessment, Draft Environmental Assessment, Preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact, and Preliminary Determination of Nonregulated Status for Cotton Genetically Engineered for Resistance to 2,4-D and Glufosinate | |
| 80 FR 30394 - Changes to the Application Requirements for Authorization to Operate in Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum Airspace | |
| 80 FR 30498 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; for Reinstatement, With Change, of a Previously Approved Collection; Notice of Change of Officials and Senior Executive Officers Forms | |
| 80 FR 30431 - Notice of Request for Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
| 80 FR 30360 - Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Harvey, LA | |
| 80 FR 30404 - Partial Approval and Disapproval of Nebraska Air Quality Implementation Plans; Revision to the State Implementation Plan Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Revocation of the PM10 | |
| 80 FR 30476 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 30464 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 80 FR 30462 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 80 FR 30336 - Federal Home Loan Bank Community Support Program-Administrative Amendments | |
| 80 FR 30475 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 30472 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 30475 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 30471 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 30473 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 30473 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 30475 - National Institute of Allergy And Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 30475 - National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 30454 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions From Glass Manufacturing Plants (Renewal) | |
| 80 FR 30454 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Management Facilities Under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System (Renewal) | |
| 80 FR 30539 - Advisory Board; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 30446 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Evaluation of the Pell Grant Experiments Under the Experimental Sites Initiative | |
| 80 FR 30536 - Agency Request for Emergency Processing of Collection of Information by the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 80 FR 30364 - Systems for Telephonic Notification of Unsafe Conditions at Highway-Rail and Pathway Grade Crossings | |
| 80 FR 30534 - Emergency Order Under 49 U.S.C. 20104 Establishing Requirements for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation To Control Passenger Train Speeds at Certain Locations Along the Northeast Corridor | |
| 80 FR 30465 - M7 Assessment and Control of DNA Reactive (Mutagenic) Impurities in Pharmaceuticals to Limit Potential Carcinogenic Risk; International Conference on Harmonisation; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 80 FR 30440 - Endangered Species; File No. 18136 | |
| 80 FR 30468 - Molecular Characterization of Multiple Myeloma Black/African Ancestry Disparity | |
| 80 FR 30459 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 30537 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel MARTHA R; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 80 FR 30347 - Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft Engines | |
| 80 FR 30345 - Airworthiness Directives; Lycoming Engines Reciprocating Engines (Type Certificate Previously Held by Textron Lycoming Division, AVCO Corporation) | |
| 80 FR 30361 - Safety Zone; Loading and Outbound Transit of TUG THOMAS and BARGE OCEANUS, Savannah River; Savannah, GA | |
| 80 FR 30574 - Guidance for Executive Order 13673, “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” | |
| 80 FR 30548 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces | |
| 80 FR 30416 - Amendments to the HUD Acquisition Regulation (HUDAR) | |
| 80 FR 30349 - Airworthiness Directives; Zodiac Seats France (Formerly Sicma Aero Seat) Passenger Seat Assemblies |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Farm Service Agency
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Housing Service
Rural Utilities Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Southeastern Power Administration
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Employment and Training Administration
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Veterans Employment and Training Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Maritime Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Rural Housing Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Utilities Service, and Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Notice of final determination; correction.
On May 6, 2015, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), along with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), published a joint notice of final determination regarding adoption of the 2009 edition of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) for single family homes and the 2007 edition of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 90.1 for multifamily buildings. A clerical error in production resulted in the wrong CFR attribution for USDA in the document's heading. This correction carries the proper CFR citation in its heading.
This correction is effective May 28, 2015, and applicable beginning May 6, 2015.
Meghan Walsh, Rural Housing Service, Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 6900-S, Washington, DC 20250; telephone number 202-205-9590 (this is not a toll-free number).
On May 6, 2015, at 80 FR 25901, USDA and HUD published a joint notice of final determination. A clerical error in production caused the document to publish with USDA's CFR citation in the heading as “7 CFR Chapter 0,” and no agencies were assigned to that chapter. As represented in the heading of this correction, the correct USDA agencies and CFR citation are Rural Housing Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Utilities Service, and Farm Service Agency and 7 CFR part 1924.
Farm Credit Administration.
Final rule.
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA, we, Agency or our) amends FCA's regulations to clarify and enhance Farm Credit System (Farm Credit or System) bank and association stockholder voting procedures for tabulating votes, the use of tellers committees, and other items as identified.
Thomas R. Risdal, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, VA, (703) 883-4257, TTY (703) 883-4056; or Nancy Tunis, Senior Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090, (703) 883-4061, TTY (703) 883-4056.
The primary objective of this rule is to clarify § 611.340 of our regulations regarding confidentiality and security in stockholder voting procedures and facilitate their safe and sound implementation by System institutions. Specifically, this final rule clarifies that:
• A System bank or association may use a tellers committee to tabulate ballots and still maintain confidentiality and security of the voting process; and
• A small number of administrative employees of a bank or association may assist a tellers committee in verifying a stockholder's eligibility to vote.
The Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (Act),
Section 611.340 of the FCA's regulations requires that the board of directors of each System bank and association adopt policies and procedures to ensure the confidentiality and security of all records and materials related to a stockholder vote including, but not limited to, ballots, proxy ballots, and other related materials. Also, this section requires that System bank and association policies and procedures ensure that ballots and proxy ballots are
The comment period for the proposed rule closed on December 15, 2014. We received three comment letters on our proposed rule: One letter from the Farm Credit Council (Council) on behalf of its members; one letter from a Farm Credit bank; and one letter from a Farm Credit association. One commenter supported the proposed rule and two commenters supported the proposed rule with suggested changes and/or clarifications. After careful consideration of the comments, the proposed rule is finalized as proposed with the exception of a clarification in § 611.340(a)(4), discussed below in Section B.
The Farm Credit bank commented that because we had clearly prohibited employees, directors, director-nominees and nominating committee members from serving as members of the tellers committee, we should clarify that these same categories of people are prohibited from serving as members of an independent third party vote tabulator. While we agree that such categories of persons would not be allowed to participate as an independent third party vote tabulator, we do not believe that such language needs to be included in the regulation, as it is inherent in the generally understood concept of an “independent” third party. We believe it is clear that under no circumstance could an employee, director, director-nominee or member of the nominating committee of an institution ever fall within a reasonable interpretation of “independent.” As an example, one dictionary definition defines “independent,” in part, as: “(1) Not subject to control by others: Self-governing; (2) not affiliated with a larger controlling unit. . . .”
The Farm Credit bank also commented that it was unclear whether the administrative employees who may assist the tellers committee are allowed to be stockholders as well. We agree that an employee who happens to also be a stockholder could effectively perform the administrative duties of voter eligibility verification so long as there is no particular conflict of interest in that employee's ability to serve in that role.
In the proposed rule preamble, we clarified certain limitations on these employees such as that they could not be part of management or principally involved in the loan-making, pricing or servicing functions of the institution. We did not state that the administrative employees could not be stockholders and, since the tellers committee is made up entirely of stockholders, it would seem counter-intuitive that there would be such a prohibition on the administrative support staff of the tellers committee. We agree with the commenter that there is no reason to prohibit employee-stockholders from serving as the administrative support for the tellers committee, but have concluded clarifying language is not needed in the regulation text since no such prohibition exists in the current language.
The Farm Credit association commenter took issue with the limitation imposed on the administrative employees assisting the tellers committee in that they cannot be part of the institution's management. The association stated that “[t]his language would prohibit the Association's corporate secretary (who in some institutions is a member of the Association's leadership team) from being involved in and insuring that the duties and responsibilities of the tellers committee are accurately performed.” The association asked that we amend the regulation text to specifically carve out an exception for the corporate secretary to serve as one of the administrative employees allowed to assist the tellers committee with voter eligibility verification.
The function of the corporate secretary contemplated by the commenter, such as “insuring that the duties and responsibilities of the tellers committee are accurately performed” is not the intended purpose behind allowing a small number of administrative staff to assist the tellers committee with voter eligibility verification. The assistance provided by the limited number of administrative employees is to perform certain ministerial tasks involved in voter eligibility verification, such as checking the name or identity code of a voter on an outer envelope of a ballot to confirm that the voter is an eligible voting stockholder. However, the institution could include in its policies and procedures that the corporate secretary, for example, is responsible for training the tellers committee's members and designated administrative staff on their appropriate roles. Alternatively, the corporate secretary could be responsible for reviewing the institution's policies and procedures for compliance with the regulation. In order to promote the goal of a confidential voting process free of undue influence, we believe that the administrative employees assisting the tellers committee with voter eligibility verification should not be members of an institution's management or leadership team. As such, we did not make the requested change to carve out an exception for the corporate secretary to perform this role.
The Farm Credit bank commented that the proposed rule may result in the list of eligible voting stockholders as of the voting record date to be submitted multiple times to different individuals or groups during the election process. The proposed rule stated that a list of eligible voting stockholders as of the voting record date must be provided to either the tellers committee or the independent third party, whichever group will be tabulating the vote, in order for the group to determine the validity of the votes cast. In the event that a tellers committee tabulates the votes and decides to utilize the services of a small number of administrative employees to assist with voter eligibility verification, it would be the tellers committee's responsibility to provide the list to those administrative employees. The proposed regulation did not contemplate that the list would be given by the institution directly to the administrative employees. The proposed rule simply gave the tellers committee the option to use a small number of administrative employees from the institution to assist the members in performing their duties.
The commenter further suggested that we clarify that the voter eligibility verification process can be performed in advance of the tellers committee's
The Farm Credit bank suggested that the regulation be modified to specifically state that, like identity codes, signatures can be used as part of the authentication process, as long as the signatures are separate from the ballot to maintain voter confidentiality. It is our understanding that this is a common practice amongst institutions. However, there is no need for this to be specifically stated in the regulation text because the regulation has always required, and continues to require, System institutions to adopt policies and procedures that ensure “that all information and materials regarding how or whether an individual stockholder has voted remain[s] confidential . . .” and the regulation has also always prohibited the use of signed ballots. If institutions wish to adopt policies and procedures regarding the use of signatures on outer envelopes (not the ballot itself), so that the prohibition on signed ballots is not violated, it is certainly within an institution's prerogative to do so. However, we believe it is best left to each individual institution to create its own policies and procedures that meet all of the requirements of this regulation regarding confidentiality and security in voting.
The Farm Credit bank expressed support for the confidentiality certification contained in new § 611.340(c). However, the bank commented that the certification may prohibit communication with stockholders about their own ballot or voting process. The certification requirement previously applied only to independent third party vote tabulators. We concluded that this requirement should be extended to any individual involved in tabulating votes or verification of voter eligibility. The certification reinforces the significance of the regulation, which requires that all information regarding how or whether an individual stockholder has voted remains confidential. The importance of the confidentiality provision and accompanying certification is to ensure that members of the tellers committee and employees assisting the tellers committee do not disclose how or whether a stockholder has voted in order to preserve the stockholder's secret ballot. If a stockholder initiated contact with a tellers committee member, or administrative employee assisting the tellers committee, the confidentiality certification would not prohibit that individual from responding to the stockholder on a question about that stockholder's own ballot. It would, however, prohibit responding to a question from the stockholder about any other stockholder's ballot.
The Council supported the proposed changes to the regulation. Specifically, the Council commented that the changes would clarify a System institution's option to utilize a tellers committee in the tabulation of votes. The Council also commented that appropriate safeguards were included in the regulation to allow for administrative employees to assist the tellers committee.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Agriculture, Banks, Banking, Rural areas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 611 of chapter VI, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
Secs. 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.12, 1.13, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.21, 4.3A, 4.12, 4.12A, 4.15, 4.20, 4.21, 4.25, 4.26, 4.27, 4.28A, 5.9, 5.17, 5.25, 7.0-7.13, 8.5(e) of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2002, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2020, 2021, 2071, 2072, 2073, 2091, 2092, 2093, 2121, 2122, 2123, 2124, 2128, 2129, 2130, 2142, 2154a, 2183, 2184, 2203, 2208, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214, 2243, 2252, 2261, 2279a-2279f-1, 2279aa-5(e)); secs. 411 and 412 of Public Law 100-233, 101 Stat. 1568, 1638; sec. 414 of Public Law 100-399, 102 Stat. 989, 1004.
(a) Each Farm Credit bank and association's board of directors must adopt policies and procedures that:
(1) Ensure the security of all records and materials related to a stockholder vote including, but not limited to, ballots, proxy ballots, and other related materials.
(2) Ensure that ballots and proxy ballots are provided only to stockholders who are eligible to vote as of the record date set for the stockholder vote.
(3) Provide for the establishment of a tellers committee or an independent third party who will be responsible for validating ballots and proxies and tabulating voting results. A tellers committee may only consist of voting stockholders who are not employees, directors, director-nominees, or members of that election cycle's nominating committee.
(4) Ensure that a list of eligible voting stockholders (or identity codes of eligible voting stockholders) as of the voting record date is provided to the tellers committee or independent third party that will be tabulating the vote to ensure the validity of the votes cast. A small number of specifically authorized administrative employees of the institution may assist the tellers committee in such verifications, provided the institution implements procedures to ensure the confidentiality and security of the information made available to the employees. If an institution is using a tellers committee, verification of voter eligibility must be done separate and apart from the opening and tabulating of the actual ballots and may be done in advance of the vote tabulation, any time after the list of eligible voting stockholders has been provided to the tellers committee.
(5) Ensure that all information and materials regarding how or whether an individual stockholder has voted remain confidential, including protecting the information from disclosure to the institution's directors, stockholders, or employees, or any other person except:
(i) A duly appointed tellers committee;
(ii) A small number of specifically authorized administrative employees assisting the tellers committee by validating stockholders' eligibility to vote;
(iii) An independent third party tabulating the vote; or
(iv) The Farm Credit Administration.
(b) No Farm Credit bank or association may use signed ballots in stockholder votes. A bank or association may use balloting procedures, such as an identity code, that can be used to identify whether an individual stockholder is eligible to vote or has previously submitted a vote. In weighted voting, the votes must be tabulated by an independent third party.
(c) An independent third party or each member of the tellers committee that tabulates the votes, and any administrative employees assisting the tellers committee in verifying stockholder eligibility to vote, must sign a certificate declaring that such party, member, or employee will not disclose to any person (including the institution, its directors, stockholders, or employees) any information about how or whether an individual stockholder has voted, except that the information must be disclosed to the Farm Credit Administration, if requested.
(d) Once a Farm Credit bank or association receives a ballot, the vote of that stockholder is final, except that a stockholder may withdraw a proxy ballot before balloting begins at a stockholders' meeting. A Farm Credit bank or association may give a stockholder voting by proxy an opportunity to give voting discretion to the proxy of the stockholder's choice, provided that the proxy is also a stockholder eligible to vote.
(e) Ballots and proxy ballots must be safeguarded before the time of distribution or mailing to voting stockholders and after the time of receipt by the bank or association until disposal. When stockholder meetings are held for the purpose of conducting elections or other votes, only proxy ballots may be accepted prior to any or all sessions of the stockholders' meeting and mail ballots may only be distributed after the conclusion of the meeting. In an election of directors, ballots, proxy ballots, and election records must be retained at least until the end of the term of office of the director. In other stockholder votes, ballots, proxy ballots, and records must be retained for at least 3 years after the vote.
(f) An institution and its officers, directors, and employees may not make any public announcement of the results of a stockholder vote before the tellers committee or independent third party has validated the results of the vote.
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Final rule.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is issuing a final rule amending its community support regulation to streamline and simplify the administrative process requirements under the regulation. The amendments will not affect the substantive requirements of the regulation, which include FHFA review and assessment of applicable members of the Federal Home Loan Banks (Banks) every two years, or change the criteria for determining member compliance with the community support standards and eligibility for access to long-term Bank advances. The amendments will replace the current process of selecting one-eighth of all applicable members for eight quarterly reviews by FHFA over a two-year review cycle, with a new process of FHFA reviewing all applicable members at the same time every two years.
This final rule will become effective on June 29, 2015.
Melissa Allen, Principal Program Analyst, (202) 649-3130, Charles McLean, Special Assistant to the Deputy Director, (202) 649-3155,
Section 10(g) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) requires FHFA to adopt regulations establishing standards of community investment or service for members of Banks to maintain access to long-term Bank advances. 12 U.S.C. 1430(g). Section 10(g) states that such regulations “shall take into account factors such as a member's performance under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 [(CRA)] and the member's record of lending to first-time homebuyers.”
FHFA's current community support regulation implements section 10(g). 12 CFR part 1290. The regulation details the CRA and first-time homebuyer standards that have been established pursuant to section 10(g). Each Bank member, except as provided in the regulation, must meet these standards in order to maintain access to long-term Bank advances. A long-term Bank advance is defined as an advance with a term to maturity greater than one year. 12 CFR 1290.1. The regulation sets forth the process that FHFA follows in reviewing, evaluating, and communicating each member's community support performance.
A member meets the CRA standard if the rating in the member's most recent CRA evaluation was “Outstanding” or “Satisfactory.” 12 CFR 1290.3(b). Only members subject to the CRA must meet the CRA standard.
A member meets the first-time homebuyer standard if it has an established record of lending to first-time homebuyers or if it performs one or more of the first-time homebuyer support activities specified in the regulation. 12 CFR 1290.3(c). A member that is subject to the CRA is deemed to meet the first-time homebuyer standard if its most recent CRA rating was “Outstanding.”
Members that have been certified as community development financial institutions (CDFIs) are deemed to be in compliance with the community support requirements and are not
The current regulation requires FHFA to select a member for community support review approximately once every two years. Approximately one-eighth of all members are required to be reviewed in each calendar quarter of a two-year review cycle. FHFA does not review a member until it has been a member of a Bank for at least one year. Each member selected for review is required to submit a Community Support Statement to FHFA evidencing the member's most recent CRA rating, if any, and its first-time homebuyers support activities.
Members selected for review are notified in two ways of the requirement to submit Community Support Statements to FHFA. First, FHFA publishes a quarterly Notice in the
FHFA reviews each member's completed Community Support Statement for compliance with the community support standards. 12 CFR 1290.4. As part of its review, FHFA is also required to take into consideration any public comments received concerning the member. 12 CFR 1290.2(d). The
A member that does not meet the requirements of the community support regulation may be placed “on probation” or “on restriction.” Typically, less than one percent of members are on probation or restriction at any given time. The regulation provides for members to be placed on probation if: (i) Their most recent CRA rating is “Needs to Improve”; or (ii) their first-time homebuyer performance is unsatisfactory. If a member is placed on probation, the member may continue to obtain long-term Bank advances. A member that is on probation as a result of its CRA rating will remain on probation until its next CRA review. If the new rating for the member fails to meet the CRA standard, the member will be placed on restriction. 12 CFR 1290.3(b)(2). A member that is on probation due to a failure to meet the first-time homebuyer standard will remain on probation for one year. If the member fails to demonstrate compliance with the first-time homebuyer standard at the end of the probationary period, the member will be placed on restriction. 12 CFR 1290.3(c)(2).
Under the regulation, a member is placed on restriction if: (i) It does not submit a Community Support Statement; (ii) it provides no evidence of first-time homebuyer performance; (iii) its most recent CRA rating is “Substantial Noncompliance”; or (iv) it fails to comply with either the CRA standard or the first-time homebuyer standard at the end of a probationary period. If a member is placed on restriction, it may not obtain long-term Bank advances until it meets the requirements for CRA ratings or first-time homebuyers activities. 12 CFR 1290.3(b)(3), (c)(3); 1290.5(a).
On November 10, 2011, FHFA published in the
In conjunction with the proposed transfer of responsibility for community support review and evaluation, the proposed rule would have eliminated the quarterly FHFA reviews of selected members and the accompanying
FHFA received 114 comments on the proposed rule. The twelve Banks submitted a joint comment letter, and a majority of the other comments were submitted by Bank members or by associations representing Bank members. Comments were also submitted by nonprofits, Bank Advisory Council members, and state housing agencies. Most of the comments, including those of the twelve Banks, opposed the proposed shift in responsibility for reviewing and assessing members' community support compliance from FHFA to the Banks. Commenters contended that the determination of whether a member complies with the community support requirements is a regulatory function best suited to FHFA and that the Banks should not be evaluating their own members. Commenters stated that each Bank would be required to adopt its own standards and procedures, resulting in unnecessary duplication of effort among the Banks. Commenters also objected to the Banks soliciting public comments on members'
The final rule does not make any of the changes to substantive requirements that were proposed in the 2011 proposed rule. FHFA will continue to be responsible for reviewing and assessing member compliance with the community support requirements, with members continuing to be reviewed every two years. However, consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule makes a number of revisions that streamline and simplify the administrative process requirements, which will facilitate the use of electronic submissions and evaluations.
The specific administrative changes are the following: Eliminating the eight quarterly review rounds; eliminating the accompanying quarterly FHFA
The final rule also makes organizational and other technical language changes in the regulation for greater clarity in administering the review process. These technical changes include codifying FHFA's long-standing policy for treatment of new Bank members, which has been to exclude members from community support reviews until they have been Bank members for more than one year. The technical changes also include codifying long-standing agency practice with respect to the consequences for failure to comply with the first-time homebuyer standard, by eliminating provisions that suggested some failures to comply would result in probation rather than restriction for the member.
The changes in the final rule will make it easier for FHFA to transition from a paper-based administrative process to a fully electronic process. An electronic submission process will further reduce the administrative process requirements. FHFA will work with the Banks to ensure that all members are able to comply with any such changes.
The specific changes made by the final rule are described in the section-by-section analysis below.
Section 1290.1 of the final rule continues to set forth definitions applicable to the community support requirements in part 1290. The final rule removes the definitions for “appropriate Federal banking agency” and “appropriate State regulator” from § 1290.1 because those terms are defined in 12 CFR part 1201, which includes general definitions applicable to all FHFA regulations.
Section 1290.2 of the final rule sets forth administrative process requirements applicable to the Banks and members under the community support regulation.
Section 1290.2(a) of the final rule provides that by the effective date of the final rule, and by March 31, 2017, and every two years thereafter, each Bank must provide written notice to all of its members subject to community support review that each such member must submit to FHFA a completed Community Support Statement in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. As further discussed under paragraph (b), FHFA will no longer review selected members' community support performance on a quarterly schedule, and instead will review all members subject to community support review at approximately the same time every two years. Accordingly, FHFA will no longer be required to notify the Banks, or publish quarterly Notices in the
Section 1290.2(a) also provides that, unless instructed otherwise by FHFA, the Bank shall provide to members a blank Community Support Statement Form, which also is available on FHFA's Web site. Section 1290.2(a) further provides that at the request of a member the Bank shall assist the member in completing the Community Support Statement. These requirements, which currently are in the quarterly
Currently, § 1290.2(a) provides that FHFA will select a member for community support review approximately once every two years. Section 1290.2(b)(1) of the final rule does not change the frequency of this review. However, instead of requiring FHFA to select members for review, the paragraph is revised to specify the deadline for members to submit to FHFA their completed Community Support Statements and any other information FHFA may require. These Statements will be due to FHFA no later than December 31, 2015, and December 31 every two years thereafter. The final rule also simplifies the existing regulatory language by incorporating current paragraph (c) on signing of the Statement in revised paragraph (b)(1).
This change means that, instead of different members being required to submit their Community Support Statements in different quarters spread over a two-year period, all members subject to community support review will be required to submit their Community Support Statements by the same deadline every two years. This change is consistent with the 2011 proposed rule, which provided for review of members' first-time homebuyers performance every two years but did not require that the Banks conduct the reviews on a quarterly basis. Reviewing all members subject to community support review on the same schedule every two years will significantly simplify and streamline the current administrative process. It will eliminate the need for FHFA to maintain and track eight separate lists of members for each quarterly round, as well as the need to publish quarterly Notices in the
FHFA is in the middle of the review cycle covering 2014 and 2015 under the current community support regulation. Starting on the effective date of the final rule, FHFA will apply the final rule's new review process for the remainder of the 2014-2015 review period. New § 1290.2(b)(2) of the final rule provides for a transition period for members that were selected for review during the 2014-2015 review cycle under the current regulation. Members that were selected for review prior to the effective date of the final rule are required to submit completed Community Support Statements as provided in the applicable
Section 1290.2(c)(1) of the final rule continues the requirement in current paragraph (b)(2) that the Banks notify their Advisory Councils, nonprofit housing developers, community groups, and other interested parties in their districts, of the community support review of members. However, the process is simplified in that, unlike under the current regulation, the notice is only required to be provided every two years rather than quarterly, reflecting the elimination of the quarterly review schedule.
Consistent with the proposed rule, § 1290.2(c)(1) of the final rule requires the Banks to also post notices on their Web sites inviting public comments on any member's community support programs and activities. Because FHFA will continue to conduct the community support reviews under the final rule, the Bank's notices shall include instructions for the public to submit any comments to FHFA.
Section 1290.2(c)(2) of the final rule provides that FHFA may publish a notice in the
Section 1290.2(c)(3) of the final rule provides that FHFA will consider any comments it receives in reviewing members for compliance with the community support requirement. This provision is substantially the same as the provision currently located in paragraph (d).
Section 1290.2(d) of the final rule continues to provide that members that have been certified as CDFIs by the CDFI Fund and that are not insured depository institutions or CDFI credit unions are deemed to be in compliance with the community support requirements. Accordingly, such non-depository CDFIs are not required to submit Community Support Statements to FHFA and are not subject to review by FHFA under the community support regulation. The final rule renumbers existing paragraph (e) as paragraph (d) and makes non-substantive changes to the paragraph for greater clarity. For additional discussion of this provision, see the
The final rule adds a new § 1290.2(e) that incorporates into the regulation the long-standing agency policy that new members of a Bank are not subject to community support review until after the first year of Bank membership. The
Section 1290.2(e) of the final rule provides that a member of a Bank is not required to submit a Community Support Statement under paragraph (b) unless the institution has been a member of a Bank for at least one year as of March 31 of the year in which submissions are due under paragraph (b). An institution that becomes a member after the applicable cut-off date will be subject to community support review during the succeeding review.
Current § 1290.3 sets forth the standards for member compliance with the community support regulation, as well as the circumstances under which a member will be placed on probation or restriction from access to long-term Bank advances. Current § 1290.5 sets forth additional provisions and procedures related to restricting access to long-term advances based on noncompliance with the community support regulation. The final rule maintains the existing standards for compliance and circumstances giving rise to probation or restriction, but these sections have been reorganized for greater clarity. As reorganized, § 1290.3 sets out the standards for member compliance with the community support regulation, and § 1290.5 sets out the circumstances under which a member will be placed on probation or restriction, as well as the procedures applicable in those circumstances.
Section 1290.3(b) of the final rule continues to provide that a member meets the CRA standard if it received a rating of “Outstanding” or “Satisfactory” in its most recent CRA evaluation. As under the current regulation, members such as credit unions and insurance companies that are not subject to the CRA will not have a CRA rating and, therefore, are subject only to the first-time homebuyer standard.
Section 1290.3(c) of the final rule continues to set forth the specific first-time homebuyer programs and activities that are eligible to meet the first-time homebuyer standard and clarifies some of the language consistent with current practice. The final rule provides that a member meets the first-time homebuyer standard if the member received a rating of “Outstanding” in its most recent CRA
Section 1290.3(c)(4)(vii) of the final rule clarifies that the first-time homebuyer standard can be met by participating or investing in service organizations that assist credit unions in providing mortgages to first-time homebuyers or to low- or moderate-income households. This clarification is consistent with FHFA's current interpretation of the regulation, which considers mortgages to low- or moderate-income households a proxy for mortgages to first-time homebuyers under the community support regulation.
The final rule also includes a new paragraph (c)(5) for other member activities supporting first-time homebuyer financing that may not be covered by the list of specified activities in the regulation. This “other activities” category is currently included in the Community Support Statement Form and is added in the final rule so that all eligible activities are set forth comprehensively in one place in the rule.
The final rule also moves the language in current § 1290.3(c)(1) on mitigating factors affecting a member's ability to meet the first-time homebuyer standard to new § 1290.3(c)(6). FHFA may determine that mitigating factors affect a member's ability to engage in activities to assist first-time or potential first-time homebuyers as described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5).
The final rule also simplifies the current regulatory language in § 1290.3 by deleting redundant language describing the various elements of the Community Support Statement and information that FHFA must consider in its evaluation of a member's community support performance. FHFA will continue to evaluate all information submitted by a member, as well as any public comments or other information, as relevant to the member's performance under the first-time homebuyer standard.
Section 1290.4 of the final rule continues to set forth the process for FHFA review and evaluation of member compliance with the community support requirements. Currently, § 1290.4 includes specific timeframes applicable to FHFA's review. Consistent with the current regulation, § 1290.4(a) of the final rule provides that FHFA will review each member approximately once every two years for compliance with the community support requirements. The final rule simplifies the existing regulatory language by eliminating unnecessarily detailed descriptions of each step in the review process, including the deadlines for FHFA review, which will no longer be applicable as members will be able to submit their Community Support Statements to FHFA for review and decision at any time after being notified by the Bank up until the December 31st deadline.
Section 1290.4(b) of the final rule continues to provide that a Community Support Statement is considered complete when a member has provided to FHFA all of the information required by this part.
Section 1290.4(c) of the final rule provides that FHFA will notify the Banks of the results of FHFA's community support determinations. Section 1290.4(c) of the final rule also requires the Banks to promptly notify their members of FHFA's determinations. Under current § 1290.4(b), FHFA notifies the members and their Banks of the results. Requiring the Banks, rather than FHFA, to notify their members of FHFA's determinations is consistent with the proposed rule. The Banks have the customer relationships with their members, and it is the Banks' responsibility to make or restrict advances to their members and communicate the status of members' access to advances.
Section 1290.4(c) of the final rule clarifies that FHFA's written notice of determination on a Community Support Statement will identify the reasons for FHFA's determination only if a member is being placed on probation or restriction. The notice will not provide specific reasons if a member is in compliance with the community support standards. The community support regulation clearly states the criteria for compliance with the community support requirements, so it is unnecessary for FHFA to further describe its rationale if FHFA determines that a member is in compliance with the community support requirements.
Currently, § 1290.5 sets out requirements and procedures applicable to restrictions on access to long-term Bank advances. As discussed above, the final rule revises § 1290.5 to consolidate the various provisions in current §§ 1290.3 and 1290.5 applicable to both probation and restriction. The final rule does not make any substantive changes to the criteria or procedures applicable to either probation or restriction.
The final rule adds a new § 1290.5(a) listing the circumstances under which FHFA will place a member on probation. Currently, § 1290.3(b)(2) provides that a member with a most recent CRA rating of “Needs to Improve” continues to have access to long-term advances but is placed on probation, which extends until the member receives its next CRA rating. The final rule includes this provision in § 1290.5(a).
Separately, current § 1290.5(d)(2) provides that a member on restriction due to a CRA rating of “Substantial Noncompliance” will be moved to probationary status if the member's subsequent CRA rating is “Needs to Improve,” and the member either had not previously received a CRA rating or had received an “Outstanding” or “Satisfactory” rating immediately prior to the CRA rating leading to restriction. The final rule includes this provision in § 1290.5(d)(3), restated for clarity and to remove a cross-reference that is no longer necessary.
Section 1290.3(c)(2) currently provides that a member is subject to probation if FHFA deems the evidence of first-time homebuyer performance to be unsatisfactory, while § 1290.3(c)(3) currently provides that a member is subject to restriction if the member provides no evidence of first-time homebuyer performance. These provisions are replaced by § 1290.5(b)(5) in the final rule, as further discussed under the restriction criteria below.
The final rule reorders existing paragraph (a) of § 1290.5 as paragraph (b), listing the circumstances under which FHFA will restrict a member's access to long-term Bank advances.
Section 1290.5(b)(1) of the final rule provides that members that fail to submit completed Community Support Statements will be placed on restriction from access to long-term advances. This provision is relocated from § 1290.5(a) in the current regulation. The final rule clarifies that a member will be placed on restriction if it: (i) Submits a Community Support Statement to FHFA that has not been signed; (ii) submits a Community Support Statement to FHFA that fails to include a CRA rating if the member is subject to the CRA; or (iii)
Sections 1290.5(b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4) of the final rule provide that a member is required to be placed on restriction from access to long-term advances if it has: (i) A CRA rating of “Substantial Noncompliance” on its most recent CRA evaluation; (ii) CRA ratings of “Needs to Improve” on its two most recent consecutive CRA evaluations; or (iii) CRA ratings of “Substantial Noncompliance” and a subsequent “Needs to Improve” on its two most recent consecutive CRA evaluations, if the CRA rating preceding the “Substantial Noncompliance” rating was “Needs to Improve” or “Substantial Noncompliance.” These provisions are relocated from §§ 1290.3(b)(3) and 1290.5(a)(3), respectively, in the current regulation.
Section 1290.5(b)(5) of the final rule provides that a member that fails to demonstrate compliance with the first-time homebuyer standard is required to be placed on restriction from access to long-term advances. This provision replaces §§ 1290.3(c)(2), 1290.3(c)(3), and 1290.5(a)(4) in the current regulation. Section 1290.3(c)(2) currently provides that a member is subject to probation if FHFA deems the evidence of first-time homebuyer performance to be unsatisfactory, while § 1290.3(c)(3) currently provides that a member is subject to restriction if the member provides no evidence of first-time homebuyer performance. Section 1290.5(a)(4) currently addresses the status of members at the end of a probationary period under § 1290.3(c)(2).
In practice, FHFA has found there to be no meaningful distinction between “unsatisfactory evidence” and “no evidence” of first-time homebuyer performance because under either criterion the member has not demonstrated compliance with the first-time homebuyer standard, resulting in restriction under the regulation (and would have resulted in restriction under the 2011 proposed rule). Either term could be interpreted to cover many of the same situations, potentially creating confusion about the proper application of the regulation. To minimize confusion and codify FHFA's long-standing practice, the final rule eliminates the distinction between “unsatisfactory evidence” and “no evidence.” Section 1290.5(b)(5) of the final rule simplifies and clarifies the existing regulatory language and provides that a member that fails to demonstrate compliance with the first-time homebuyer standard will be placed on restriction.
Section 1290.5(c) of the final rule revises current paragraph (c), which sets forth the effective date for members placed on restriction, to include the effective dates applicable for both probation and restriction. Paragraph (c)(1) provides that the probationary period under § 1290.5(a) will extend until the member's appropriate Federal banking agency completes its next CRA evaluation and issues a rating. The member will be eligible to receive long-term advances during the probationary period. At the end of the probationary period, the member would either meet the CRA standard under § 1290.3(b) or would be placed on restriction pursuant to § 1290.5(b)(3). Probation will take effect on the date the notice required under § 1290.4(c) is sent by FHFA to the Bank.
Paragraph (c)(2) provides that a restriction on access to long-term advances will take effect 30 days after notice is sent by FHFA to the Bank, unless the member demonstrates compliance before the end of the 30-day period.
Currently, § 1290.5(d) sets out the criteria and procedures for removing restrictions on members' access to long-term Bank advances. The final rule consolidates the substance of paragraph (d)(2) with the rest of the provisions regarding probation and restriction in paragraphs (a) and (b) of that section.
Section 1290.5(d)(1) of the final rule retains the current provision that a restriction may be removed if FHFA determines, upon written request from a member, that application of the restriction may adversely affect the safety and soundness of the member.
Section 1290.5(d)(2) of the final rule retains the current provision that a restriction may be removed if FHFA determines, upon written request from a member, that the member subsequently has complied with the requirements of this part,
Section 1290.5(d)(3) of the final rule provides that FHFA will remove a restriction on a member's access to long-term advances and place the member on probation if the member is subject to the CRA and the member received a rating of “Needs to Improve” in its most recent CRA evaluation, its immediately preceding CRA rating was “Substantial Noncompliance,” and either the member has not received any other CRA rating or the CRA rating before the rating of “Substantial Noncompliance” was “Outstanding” or “Satisfactory.” This provision retains the requirements in current § 1290.5(d)(2).
Section 1290.5(d)(4) of the final rule retains the provision in current § 1290.5(d)(3) requiring FHFA to provide written notice to the member's Bank of a determination by FHFA to remove a restriction on the member's access to long-term advances. The final rule revises the current provision by requiring the Bank, rather than FHFA, to provide notice promptly to the member of FHFA's determination to remove a restriction. The determination to remove a restriction takes effect on the date the notice is sent by FHFA to the Bank.
Section 1290.5(e) of the current regulation provides that a member that is subject to restriction on access to long-term Bank advances due to a failure to meet the community support requirements is not eligible to submit new applications under the Bank's Community Investment Cash Advance (CICA) programs under 12 CFR part 1291 or 12 CFR part 952. Section 1290.5(e) of the final rule retains the current provision, with two technical clarifications. The final rule states explicitly that part 1291 is the regulation for the Bank Affordable Housing Programs (AHP). The AHP is included under the definition of CICA program, as described in 12 CFR 1292.1. The final rule also updates the cross-reference to the CICA regulation from part 952 to part 1292.
Section 1290.6 of the final rule sets out the requirements for the Banks' community support programs, including requirements that each Bank's program: provide technical assistance to members; promote and expand affordable housing finance; and include an annual Targeted Community Lending Plan. The final rule does not make any changes to current § 1290.6.
Section 1290.7 of the final rule sets out a requirement that each Annual Report submitted by a Bank's Advisory Council to FHFA pursuant to section 10(j)(11) of the Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1430(j)(11)) must include an analysis of the Bank's targeted community lending and affordable housing activities. The final rule makes non-substantive
Most of the specific administrative changes in the final rule have already been subject to prior public notice and comment as part of the 2011 proposed rule. 76 FR 70069. As discussed in more detail above, in adopting this final rule, FHFA has considered all of the comments that were received on the 2011 proposed rule. However, even if the changes in the final rule had not been included in the 2011 proposed rule, they would be exempt from the prior public notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Section 553(b)(A) of the APA provides that when a regulation involves matters of agency organization, procedure, or practice, the agency may publish the regulation in final form without prior public notice and comment. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). This final rule involves matters of agency procedure and practice. The final rule does not make any change to the substantive standards for compliance with the community support regulation. The changes in the final rule are limited to administrative changes in the process that FHFA itself uses to evaluate members. As a result, FHFA finds that the final rule is exempt from the public notice and comment provisions of section 553.
In addition, section 553(b)(B) of the APA provides that when an agency for good cause finds that notice and comment are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may publish the regulation in final form without prior public notice and comment. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Many of the changes in this final rule are limited to reorganizing and restating existing provisions for clarity and, therefore, are insignificant in nature and impact. As a result, FHFA finds that public notice and comment on those changes are unnecessary.
FHFA currently collects information from Bank members regarding their compliance with the community support requirements under existing part 1290. Existing part 1290 also permits Bank members whose access to long-term advances has been restricted for failure to meet the community support requirements to apply directly to FHFA to remove the restriction under certain circumstances. The current collection of information has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the control number, OMB No. 2590-0005, will expire on February 29, 2016. The final rule amends the community support provisions in part 1290 but does not substantively or materially modify the approved information collection with respect to the members' information collection burden. Therefore, FHFA has not submitted any request to revise the information collection to OMB for review and approval.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Credit, Federal home loan banks, Housing, Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Supplementary Information, and under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 4526, FHFA revises part 1290 of title 12, chapter XII of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1430(g), 4511, 4513.
For purposes of this part:
(1) An individual and his or her spouse, if any, who has had no present ownership interest in a principal residence during the three-year period prior to purchase of a principal residence.
(2) A displaced homemaker who, except for owning a residence with his or her spouse or residing in a residence owned by his or her spouse, meets the requirements of paragraph (1) of this definition.
(3) A single parent who, except for owning a residence with his or her spouse or residing in a residence owned by his or her spouse, meets the requirements of paragraph (1) of this definition.
(a)
(b)
(2)
(c)
(2)
(3)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) The member is subject to the requirements of the CRA and the rating in the member's most recent CRA evaluation is “Outstanding”;
(2) The member has an established record of lending to first-time homebuyers;
(3) The member has a program whereby it actively seeks to lend or support lending to first-time homebuyers, including, but not limited to, the following—
(i) Providing special credit products with flexible underwriting standards for first-time homebuyers;
(ii) Participating in Federal, State, or local government, or nationwide homeownership lending programs that benefit, serve, or are targeted to, first-time homebuyers; or
(iii) Participating in loan consortia for first-time homebuyer loans or loans that serve predominantly low- or moderate-income borrowers;
(4) The member has a program whereby it actively seeks to assist or support organizations that assist potential first-time homebuyers to qualify for mortgage loans, including, but not limited to, the following—
(i) Providing, participating in, or supporting special counseling programs or other homeownership education activities that benefit, serve, or are targeted to, first-time homebuyers;
(ii) Providing or participating in marketing plans and related outreach programs targeted to first-time homebuyers;
(iii) Providing technical assistance or financial support to organizations that assist first-time homebuyers;
(iv) Participating with or financially supporting community or nonprofit groups that assist first-time homebuyers;
(v) Holding investments or making loans that support first-time homebuyer programs;
(vi) Holding mortgage-backed securities that may include a pool of loans to low- and moderate-income homebuyers;
(vii) Participating or investing in service organizations that assist credit unions in providing mortgages to first-time homebuyers or low- or moderate-income households; or
(viii) Participating in a Bank Affordable Housing Program or other Bank targeted community investment or development program;
(5) The member engages in other activities, not covered by paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section, that demonstrate to FHFA's satisfaction the member's support for first-time homebuyers financing; or
(6) FHFA determines that mitigating factors affect the member's ability to engage in activities to assist first-time or potential first-time homebuyers as
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(1) The member failed to sign its Community Support Statement submitted to FHFA pursuant to § 1290.2(b)(1), failed to include its CRA rating in its Community Support Statement submitted to FHFA if subject to the CRA, or failed to submit a Community Support Statement at all to FHFA;
(2) The member is subject to the CRA and its most recent CRA rating was “Substantial Noncompliance”;
(3) The member is subject to the CRA, its most recent CRA rating was “Needs to Improve,” and its second-most recent CRA rating was “Needs to Improve”;
(4) The member is subject to the CRA, its most recent CRA rating was “Needs to Improve,” its second-most recent CRA rating was “Substantial Noncompliance,” and its third-most recent CRA rating was “Needs to Improve” or “Substantial Noncompliance”; or
(5) The member has not demonstrated compliance with the first-time homebuyer standard.
(c)
(2)
(d)
(2) FHFA may remove a restriction on a member's access to long-term advances imposed under this section if FHFA determines that the member subsequently has complied with the requirements of this part. A member may submit a written request to FHFA to remove a restriction on access to long-term advances under this paragraph (d)(2). The written request must state with specificity how the member has complied with the requirements of this part. FHFA will consider each written request within 30 calendar days of receipt.
(3) FHFA may remove a restriction on a member's access to long-term advances imposed under this section and place the member on probation if the member is subject to the CRA, its most recent CRA rating was “Needs to Improve,” its second-most recent CRA rating was “Substantial Noncompliance,” and either the member has not received any other CRA rating or its third-most recent CRA rating was “Outstanding” or “Satisfactory.”
(4) FHFA will provide written notice to the member's Bank of any determination to remove a restriction under this paragraph (d). The Bank shall promptly notify the member of FHFA's determination to remove a restriction. FHFA's determination shall take effect on the date the notice is sent by FHFA to the Bank.
(e)
(a)
(1) Provide technical assistance to members;
(2) Promote and expand affordable housing finance;
(3) Identify opportunities for members to expand financial and credit services in underserved neighborhoods and communities;
(4) Encourage members to increase their targeted community lending and affordable housing finance activities by providing incentives such as awards or technical assistance to nonprofit housing developers or community groups with outstanding records of participation in targeted community lending or affordable housing finance partnerships with members; and
(5) Include an annual Targeted Community Lending Plan, approved by the Bank's board of directors and subject to modification, which shall require the Bank to—
(i) Conduct market research in the Bank's district;
(ii) Describe how the Bank will address identified credit needs and market opportunities in the Bank's district for targeted community lending;
(iii) Consult with its Advisory Council and with members, housing associates, and public and private economic development organizations in the Bank's district in developing and
(iv) Establish quantitative targeted community lending performance goals.
(b)
(1) Identifying CICA programs and other Bank activities that may provide opportunities for a member to meet the community support requirements and to engage in targeted community lending; and
(2) Summarizing targeted community lending and affordable housing activities undertaken by members, housing associates, nonprofit housing developers, community groups, or other entities in the Bank's district that may provide opportunities for a member to meet the community support requirements and to engage in targeted community lending.
Each Annual Report submitted by a Bank's Advisory Council to FHFA pursuant to section 10(j)(11) of the Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1430(j)(11)) must include an analysis of the Bank's targeted community lending and affordable housing activities.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Lycoming TIO-540-AJ1A reciprocating engines. This AD was prompted by several reports of cracked engine exhaust pipes. This AD requires inspection of the engine exhaust pipes for cracks and replacement of the turbocharger mounting bracket. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the exhaust system due to cracking, which could lead to uncontrolled engine fire, harmful exhaust gases entering the cabin resulting in crew incapacitation, and damage to the airplane.
This AD is effective July 2, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 2, 2015.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Lycoming Engines, 652 Oliver Street, Williamsport, PA 17701; phone: 800-258-3279; fax: 570-327-7101; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Norm Perenson, Aerospace Engineer, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7337; fax: 516-794-5531; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Lycoming TIO-540-AJ1A reciprocating engines. The NPRM published in the
We reviewed Lycoming Engines Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 614A, dated October 10, 2014. This service bulletin describes procedures for exhaust system inspection and turbocharger mounting bracket replacement. It also provides for the return of the turbocharger mounting bracket to Lycoming. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 5489, February 2, 2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed.
We estimate that this AD affects about 111 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 8 hours per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Parts replacement will cost about $6,782 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $828,282. Our cost estimate is exclusive of possible warranty coverage.
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
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective July 2, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to all Lycoming TIO-540-AJ1A reciprocating engines listed by engine serial number (S/N) in Figure 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD and to any TIO-540-AJ1A reciprocating engine with a replacement turbocharger mounting bracket installed that was purchased between April 5, 2012 and May 29, 2014.
This AD was prompted by several reports of cracked engine exhaust pipes. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the exhaust system due to cracking, which could lead to uncontrolled engine fire, harmful exhaust gases entering the cabin resulting in crew incapacitation, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For affected engines with an S/N listed in Figure 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD with 400 hours or less time since new (TSN) or time since last overhaul (TSLO), and for any TIO-540-AJ1A reciprocating engine with a replacement turbocharger mounting bracket installed that was purchased between April 5, 2012 and May 29, 2014, that has accumulated 400 hours or less time-in-service (TIS), within 25 hours after the effective date of this AD, replace the turbocharger mounting bracket with a part eligible for installation, and inspect the exhaust pipes for cracks. Use Lycoming Engines Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 614A, dated October 10, 2014, Exhaust System Disassembly and Removal, paragraphs 1 through 22 to replace the bracket, and Exhaust System Inspection, paragraphs 1 through 5 to do the inspection.
(2) For affected engines with an S/N listed in Figure 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD with more than 400 hours TSN or TSLO, and for any TIO-540-AJ1A reciprocating engine with a replacement turbocharger mounting bracket installed that was purchased between April 5, 2012 and May 29, 2014, that has accumulated more than 400 hours TIS, replace the turbocharger mounting bracket with a part eligible for installation, and inspect the exhaust pipes for cracks at the next engine overhaul, separation of the crankcase halves, or twelve years from the effective date of this AD, whichever comes first. Use Lycoming Engines MSB No. 614A, dated October 10, 2014, Exhaust System Disassembly and Removal, paragraphs 1 through 22 to replace the bracket, and Exhaust System Inspection, paragraphs 1 through 5 to do the inspection.
After the effective date of this AD, do not return to service any TIO-540-AJ1A engine with a turbocharger mounting bracket that was removed from an engine identified in Figure 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD or that was purchased between April 5, 2012 and May 29, 2014.
(1) If, before the effective date of this AD, you replaced the turbocharger mounting bracket with one eligible for installation you may take credit for your prior corrective action. No further turbocharger mounting bracket replacement is required.
(2) If, before the effective date of this AD, you performed the crack inspection using either of the following:
(i) Lycoming Engines MSB No. 614A, dated October 10, 2014, Exhaust System Inspection, paragraphs 1 through 5, or
(ii) Cessna Service Letter No. SEL-78-01, dated May 30, 2014, you may take credit for your prior corrective action. No further inspection is required. However, you must still replace the turbocharger mounting bracket.
The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs to this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request.
For more information about this AD, contact Norm Perenson, Aerospace Engineer, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7337; fax: 516-794-5531; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Lycoming Engines Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 614A, dated October 10, 2014.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Lycoming Engines service information identified in this AD, contact Lycoming Engines, 652 Oliver Street, Williamsport, PA 17701; phone: 800-258-3279; fax: 570-327-7101; Internet:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are superseding airworthiness directive (AD) 2014-01-01 for all Turbomeca S.A. Arrius 2F turboshaft engines. AD 2014-01-01 required a one-time inspection of the ejector assembly nozzle of certain serial number (S/N) lubricating devices and, if a discrepancy was found, removal and replacement of the affected ejector assembly nozzle with a part eligible for installation. This AD requires the same action as AD 2014-01-01 and expands the list of affected S/N lubricating devices. This AD was prompted by the determination that additional lubricating devices, identifiable by S/N, may have an incorrect bonding of the nozzle on the ejector assembly. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the ejector assembly nozzle, which could lead to an in-flight shutdown (IFSD) of the engine, damage to the engine, and damage to the helicopter.
This AD is effective June 12, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 12, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of February 6, 2014 (79 FR 3481, January 22, 2014).
We must receive any comments on this AD by July 13, 2015.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 00; telex: 570 042; fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 15. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125. It is also available on the Internet at
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Philip Haberlen, Aerospace Engineer,
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On January 2, 2014, we issued AD 2014-01-01, Amendment 39-17724 (79 FR 3481, January 22, 2014), (“AD 2014-01-01”), for all Turbomeca S.A. Arrius 2F turboshaft engines. AD 2014-01-01 required a one-time inspection of the ejector assembly nozzle of certain S/N lubricating devices and, if a discrepancy was found, removal and replacement of the affected ejector assembly nozzle with a part eligible for installation. AD 2014-01-01 resulted from an IFSD of an Arriel 1 engine. We issued AD 2014-01-01 to prevent failure of the ejector assembly nozzle, which could lead to an IFSD of the engine, damage to the engine, and damage to the helicopter.
Since we issued AD 2014-01-01 it has been determined that additional lubricating devices, identifiable by S/N, may have the same unsafe condition, an incorrect bonding of the nozzle on the ejector assembly. Also since we issued AD 2014-01-01, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has issued AD 2015-0057, dated April 1, 2015, which requires inspection, and replacement as necessary, of the affected lubricating devices.
We reviewed Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 319 79 4835, Version B, dated February 12, 2015. The MSB describes procedures for inspecting the ejector assembly nozzle and, if necessary, replacing the ejector assembly nozzle. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This AD requires a one-time inspection of the ejector assembly nozzle of certain S/N lubricating devices and, for any ejector assembly nozzle that fails inspection, removal and replacement with a part eligible for installation.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because of the short compliance time requirement. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
We estimate that this AD affects 96 engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 hour per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Required parts cost about $563 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $62,208.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective June 12, 2015.
This AD supersedes AD 2014-01-01, Amendment 39-17724 (79 FR 3481, January 22, 2014).
This AD applies to all Turbomeca S.A. Arrius 2F turboshaft engines.
This AD was prompted by the determination that additional lubricating devices, identifiable by serial number (S/N), may have an incorrect bonding of the nozzle on the ejector assembly. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the ejector assembly nozzle, which could lead to an in-flight shutdown of the engine, damage to the engine, and damage to the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For engines equipped with a lubricating device having an S/N listed in Figure 1 to paragraph (e) of this AD, within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect the ejector assembly nozzle and the tightening torque. Use paragraphs 4.4.2.1 through 4.4.2.3.4.2 of Turbomeca Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 319 79 4835, Version B, dated February 12, 2015, to do the inspection.
(2) For any part that fails the inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, before further flight, remove and replace the failed part with a part eligible for installation.
If you inspected the ejector assembly nozzle of any lubricating device having an S/N listed in Figure 1 to paragraph (e) of this AD before the effective date of this AD, using the instructions of Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 319 79 4835, Version A, dated May 22, 2013, you met the requirements of paragraph (e) of this AD for that S/N lubricating device.
After the effective date of this AD, do not return to service any engine having a lubricating device with an S/N listed in Figure 1 to paragraph (e) of this AD, unless the engine has been inspected per the requirements of paragraph (e) of this AD.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to:
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Philip Haberlen, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7770; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2015-0057, dated April 1, 2015, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on June 12, 2015.
(i) Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 319 79 4835, Version B, dated February 12, 2015.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on February 6, 2014 (79 FR 3481, January 22, 2014).
(i) Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 319 79 4835, Version A, dated May 22, 2013.
(ii) Reserved.
(5) For Turbomeca S.A. service information identified in this AD, contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 00; telex: 570 042; fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 15.
(6) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
(7) You may view this service information at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; request for comments.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-20-11, for Zodiac Seats France 9140, 9166, 9173, 9174, 9184, 9188, 9196, 91B7, 91B8, 91C0, 91C2, 91C4, 91C5, 91C9, 9301, and 9501 series passenger seat assemblies. AD 2014-20-11 required a general visual inspection for cracking of
This AD becomes effective June 12, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 22, 2014 (79 FR 60322, October 7, 2014).
We must receive comments on this AD by July 13, 2015.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact Zodiac Seats France, 7, Rue Lucien Coupet, 36100 ISSOUDUN, France; telephone +33 (0) 2 54 03 39 39; fax +33 (0) 2 54 03 39 00; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Ian Lucas, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) ANE-150, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7757; fax: 781-238-7170; email:
On September 23, 2014, we issued AD 2014-20-11, Amendment 39-17984 (79 FR 60322, October 7, 2014), to supersede AD 2011-07-05, Amendment 39-16642 (76 FR 18020, April 1, 2011). AD 2014-20-11 applied to certain Zodiac Seats France 9140, 9166, 9173, 9174, 9184, 9188, 9196, 91B7, 91B8, 91C0, 91C2, 91C4, 91C5, 91C9, 9301, and 9501 series passenger seat assemblies; identified in Annex 1, Issue 3, dated January 25, 2012, of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90-25-012, Issue 6, dated January 25, 2012. AD 2014-20-11 was prompted by a report that new seat backrest links could be affected by cracks similar to those identified on the backrest links with the previous design. AD 2014-20-11 required a general visual inspection for cracking of backrest links, which includes new seat backrest links; replacement with new links if cracking is found; and eventual replacement of all links with new links. We issued AD 2014-20-11 to detect and correct cracking of backrest links, which could affect the structural integrity of seat backrests. Failure of the backrest links could result in injury to an occupant during emergency landing conditions.
AD 2014-20-11, Amendment 39-17984 (79 FR 60322, October 7, 2014), corresponds to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2012-0038, dated March 12, 2012. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
Since we issued AD 2014-20-11, Amendment 39-17984 (79 FR 60322, October 7, 2014), we have determined that, in paragraph (c)(1) of AD 2014-20-11, a model designation incorrectly specified “A320-300” instead of “A330-300” as one of the models that the affected passenger seats might be installed on. Therefore, we have determined that paragraph (c)(1) of this AD should read as follows: Airbus Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, and A330-300 series airplanes.
We have also re-designated paragraph (l) of AD 2014-20-11, Amendment 39-17984 (79 FR 60322, October 7, 2014), as paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. We also added a new paragraph (l)(2) to this AD to provide information on the availability of service information that is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
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 issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
Since there are currently no domestic operators of airplanes that are equipped with this product, notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 0 seat assemblies installed on, but not limited to, transport airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions required by AD 2014-20-11, Amendment 39-17984 (79 FR 60322, October 7, 2014), and retained in this AD take about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $227 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 2014-20-11 is $312 per product.
Since this AD only clarifies airplane models on which the affected passenger seat assemblies might be installed, this AD adds no additional economic burden.
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.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective June 12, 2015.
This AD replaces AD 2014-20-11, Amendment 39-17984 (79 FR 60322, October 7, 2014).
This AD applies to Zodiac Seats France 9140, 9166, 9173, 9174, 9184, 9188, 9196, 91B7, 91B8, 91C0, 91C2, 91C4, 91C5, 91C9, 9301, and 9501 series passenger seat assemblies; identified in Annex 1, Issue 3, dated January 25, 2012, of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90-25-012, Issue 6, dated January 25, 2012. These passenger seat assemblies are installed on, but not limited to, the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Airbus Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, and A330-300 series airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes.
(3) The Boeing Company Model 777-200, 777-200LR, 777-300, 777-300ER, and 777F series airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/Furnishings.
This AD was prompted by a report of cracks in the backrest links on certain seats and also by a determination that a model designation specified in paragraph (c)(1) of AD 2014-20-11, Amendment 39-17984 (79 FR 60322, October 7, 2014) was incorrect. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the backrest links, which could affect the structural integrity of seat backrests. Failure of the backrest links could result in injury to an occupant during emergency landing conditions.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014-20-11, Amendment 39-17984 (79 FR 60322, October 7, 2014), with no changes. At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD: Do a general visual inspection for cracking of seat backrest links having part number (P/N) 90-000200-104-1, P/N 90-000200-104-2, P/N 90-000202-104-1, and P/N 90-000202-104-2, in accordance with the “PART ONE: GENERAL INTERMEDIATE CHECKING PROCEDURE” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90-25-012, Issue 6, dated January 25, 2012, including Annex 1, Issue 3, dated January 25, 2012. If no cracking is found on any link, repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 900 flight hours on the seat or 5 months since the most recent inspection, whichever occurs later, until the replacement specified in paragraph (i) of this AD is done.
(1) Within 6,000 flight hours on the seat or 2 years, whichever occurs later after the seat manufacturing date or after the backrest link replacement.
(2) Within 900 flight hours on the seat after October 22, 2014 (the effective date AD 2014-20-11, Amendment 39-17984 (79 FR 60322, October 7, 2014)), but no later than 5 months after October 22, 2014.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2014-20-11, Amendment 39-17984 (79 FR 60322, October 7, 2014), with no changes.
(1) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any cracking is found on the link and no crack length exceeds the lock-out pin-hole as specified in Figure 2 or 4, as applicable, of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90-25-012, Issue 6, dated January 25, 2012, including Annex 1, Issue 3, dated January 25, 2012: Within 600 flight hours on the seat or 3 months, whichever occurs later after crack identification, replace the cracked link with a new link, in accordance with “PART TWO: ROUTINE REPLACEMENT PROCEDURE (EXCEPT FOR SERIES 91B7, 91B8 & 91C5)” or “PART THREE: ROUTINE REPLACEMENT PROCEDURE (FOR SERIES 91B7, 91B8 & 91C5)” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90-25-012, Issue 6, dated January 25, 2012, including Annex 1, Issue 3, dated January 25, 2012.
(2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any cracking is found on the link and any crack length exceeds the lock-out pin-hole as specified in Figure 2 or 4, as applicable, of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90-25-012, Issue 6, dated January 25, 2012, including Annex 1, Issue 3, dated January 25, 2012: Before
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2014-20-11, Amendment 39-17984 (79 FR 60322, October 7, 2014), with no changes. At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD: Replace all seat backrest links, having P/N 90-000200-104-1, P/N 90-000200-104-2, P/N 90-000202-104-1, and P/N 90-000202-104-2, with new links, in accordance with “PART TWO: ROUTINE REPLACEMENT PROCEDURE (EXCEPT FOR SERIES 91B7, 91B8 & 91C5)” or “PART THREE: ROUTINE REPLACEMENT PROCEDURE (FOR SERIES 91B7, 91B8 & 91C5)” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90-25-012, Issue 6, dated January 25, 2012, including Annex 1, Issue 3, dated January 25, 2012.
(1) Within 12,000 flight hours on the seat or 4 years, whichever occurs later after the seat manufacturing date or after the backrest link replacement.
(2) Within 3,500 flight hours on the seat after October 22, 2014 (the effective date AD 2014-20-11, Amendment 39-17984 (79 FR 60322, October 7, 2014), but no later than 18 months after October 22, 2014.
This paragraph restates the credit provided in paragraph (j) of AD 2014-20-11, Amendment 39-17984 (79 FR 60322, October 7, 2014), with no changes. This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before October 22, 2014 (the effective date AD 2014-20-11, Amendment 39-17984 (79 FR 60322, October 7, 2014), using the service information specified in paragraph (j)(1), (j)(2), or (j)(3) of this AD.
(1) Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90-25-012, Issue 3, dated October 3, 2001, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(2) Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90-25-012, Issue 4, dated December 19, 2001, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(3) Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90-25-012, Issue 5, dated March 19, 2004, including Annex 1, Issue 2, dated March 19, 2004, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2011-07-05, Amendment 39-16642 (76 FR 18020, April 1, 2011).
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0038, dated March 12, 2012, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (m)(4) and (m)(5) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on October 22, 2014 (79 FR 60322, October 7, 2014).
(i) Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90-25-012, Issue 6, dated January 25, 2012, including Annex 1, Issue 3, dated January 25, 2012.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) For service information identified in this AD, contact Zodiac Seats France, 7, Rue Lucien Coupet, 36100 ISSOUDUN, France; telephone +33 (0) 2 54 03 39 39; fax +33 (0) 2 54 03 39 00; email
(5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(6) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Direct final rule.
This direct final rule makes non-substantive changes by removing regulations that are captured in NASA internal requirements. The revisions to this rule are part of NASA's retrospective plan completed in August 2011 under Executive Order (E.O.) 13563. NASA's full plan can be accessed on the Agency's open Government Web site at
This direct final rule is effective on July 27, 2015. Comments due on or before June 29, 2015. If adverse comments are received, NASA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
Comments must be identified with RIN 2700-AE20 and may be sent to NASA via the
Nanette Jennings, 202-358-0819.
NASA has determined this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct final rule because it involves non-substantive changes to remove a section from 14 CFR part 1216 that is captured in internal NASA requirements. No opposition to the changes and no significant adverse comments are expected. However, if the Agency receives a significant adverse comment, it will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a notice in the
On January 18, 2011, President Obama signed E.O. 13563, Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review, directing agencies to develop a plan for a retrospective analysis of existing regulations. NASA developed its plan and published it on the Agency's open Government Web site at
Subpart 1216.2 was promulgated January 4, 1979, [44 FR 1089] in response to Executive Order (E.O.) 11988, Floodplain Management, and E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands. Neither E.O. mandates that these requirements be codified in the CFR. For example, E.O. 11988 subsection 2(d) states in pertinent part “. . . each agency shall issue or amend existing regulations and procedures . . .;” and E.O. 11990 section 6 states in pertinent part “. . . agencies shall issue or amend their existing procedures . . .” Therefore, this subpart will be repealed because it is now captured in NASA Interim Directive (NID) 8500.100, Floodplain and Wetlands Management. NID 8500.100 is accessible at
The National Aeronautics and Space Act (the Space Act), 51 U.S.C. 20113 (a), authorizes the Administrator of NASA to make, promulgate, issue, rescind, and amend rules and regulations governing the manner of its operations and the exercise of the powers vested in it by law.
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, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits of reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated as “not significant” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This direct final rule does not contain any information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
E.O. 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) requires regulations be reviewed for Federalism effects on the institutional interest of states and local governments, and if the effects are sufficiently substantial, preparation of the Federal assessment is required to assist senior policy makers. The amendments will not have any substantial direct effects on state and local governments within the meaning of the E.O. Therefore, no Federalism assessment is required.
Flood plains.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the vibrator for climax control of premature ejaculation into class II (special controls). The special controls that will apply to the device are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the classification of the vibrator for climax control of premature ejaculation. The Agency is classifying the device into class II (special controls) in order to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device.
This order is effective May 28, 2015. The classification was applicable on March 20, 2015.
Tuan Nguyen, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. G118, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5174,
In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)), devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976), generally referred to as postamendments devices, are classified automatically by statute into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. These devices remain in class III and require premarket approval, unless and until the device is classified or reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues an order
Section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, as amended by section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), provides two procedures by which a person may request FDA to classify a device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1). Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act for a device that has not previously been classified and, within 30 days of receiving an order classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1), the person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2). Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a premarket notification under section 510(k) and then a request for classification under the first procedure, the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence and requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. If the person submits a request to classify the device under this second procedure, FDA may decline to undertake the classification request if FDA identifies a legally marketed device that could provide a reasonable basis for review of substantial equivalence with the device or if FDA determines that the device submitted is not of “low-moderate risk” or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls to mitigate the risks cannot be developed.
In response to a request to classify a device under either procedure provided by section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA will classify the device by written order within 120 days. This classification will be the initial classification of the device. On November 21, 2013, Ergon Medical, Ltd., submitted a request for classification of the Prolong
In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1). FDA classifies devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the information submitted in the request, FDA determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA believes these special controls, in addition to general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on March 20, 2015, FDA issued an order to the requestor classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 876.5025.
Following the effective date of this final classification order, any firm submitting a premarket notification (510(k)) for a vibrator for climax control of premature ejaculation will need to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The device is assigned the generic name vibrator for climax control of premature ejaculation, and it is identified as a device used for males who suffer from premature ejaculation. It is designed to increase the time between arousal and ejaculation using the stimulating vibratory effects of the device on the penis.
FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device, as well as the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.
FDA believes that the following special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness:
• The labeling must include specific instructions regarding the proper placement and use of the device.
• The portions of the device that contact the patient must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
• Appropriate analysis/testing must demonstrate electromagnetic compatibility safety, electrical safety, and thermal safety of the device.
• Mechanical safety testing must demonstrate that the device will withstand forces encountered during use.
Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act, if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. Therefore, this device type is not exempt from premarket notification requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of device must submit to FDA a premarket notification, prior to marketing the device, which contains information about the vibrator for climax control of premature ejaculation they intend to market.
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120, and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
The following reference has been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and is available electronically at
Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 876 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.
(a)
(b)
(1) The labeling must include specific instructions regarding the proper placement and use of the device.
(2) The portions of the device that contact the patient must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
(3) Appropriate analysis/testing must demonstrate electromagnetic compatibility safety, electrical safety, and thermal safety of the device.
(4) Mechanical safety testing must demonstrate that the device will withstand forces encountered during use.
USTRANSCOM, DoD.
Final rule.
Section 366 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 directs the Secretary of Defense to determine a fair and reasonable rate of payment for airlift services provided to the Department of Defense by air carriers who are participants in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet Program. The Department of Defense (the Department or DoD) is promulgating regulations to establish ratemaking procedures for civil reserve air fleet contracts as required by Section 366(a) in order to determine a fair and reasonable rate of payment.
This final rule is effective on June 29, 2015.
Mr. Richard Gates, Chief, Acquisition Law, USTRANSCOM/TCJA, (618) 220-3982 or Mr. Jeff Beyer, Chief, Business Support and Policy Division, USTRANSCOM/TCAQ, (618) 220-7021.
The Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) is a wartime readiness program, based on the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, (50 U.S.C. App. 2601
The United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) negotiates and structures award of aircraft service contracts with certificated civilian air carriers willing to participate in the CRAF program in order to ensure that a mobilization base of aircraft is capable of responding to any level of defense-orientated situations.
The ability to set rates maintains the CRAF program's great flexibility to have any air carrier in the program able to provide aircraft within 24 hours of activation to fly personnel and cargo to any location in the world at a set rate per passenger or ton mile, regardless of where the air carrier normally operates. It also provides the Secretary of Defense the ability to respond rapidly to assist in emergencies and approved humanitarian operations, both in the United States and overseas where delay could result in more than monetary losses. The Government-set rate allows contracts to any location, sometimes awarded within less than an hour, and provides substantial commercial capability on short notice.
During the initial CRAF program years (between 1955 and 1962), ratemaking to price DoD airlift service relied upon price competition to meet its commercial airlift needs. This procurement method resulted in predatory pricing issues and failed to provide service meeting safety and performance requirements. Congressional Subcommittee hearings held at the time determined price competition to be non-compensatory and destructive to the industry. As a result, the ratemaking process was implemented under the regulatory authority of the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB). Ratemaking continued under the CAB until deregulation in 1980. At that time, civil air carriers and DoD's contracting agency for long-term international airlift, the Military Airlift Command (MAC), agreed by a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that CAB methodologies by which rates for DoD airlift were established produced fair and reasonable rates and furthered the objectives of the CRAF program; and therefore, the parties agreed to continue to use CAB methodologies for establishing MAC uniform negotiated rates under an MOU renewed every five years. MAC became Air Mobility Command (AMC) on June 1, 1992. Ratemaking continued under AMC until January 1, 2007, when DoD's contracting authority for long-term international airlift was transferred from AMC to USTRANSCOM. On December 31, 2011, the National Defense
This rule broadly tracks the longstanding ratemaking procedures for CRAF contracts in all substantial elements and the ratemaking methodologies supporting the pricing of airlift services as described in previous and current MOUs between certificated civilian air carriers willing to participate in the CRAF program and USTRANSCOM and USTRANSCOM predecessor entities.
In addition to compliance with this rule, CRAF participants, consistent with past practice, will be expected to enter into a MOU with USTRANSCOM where they will be expected to furnish USTRANSCOM, as a condition of its continued participation in the CRAF program, with the financial and operational information required by USTRANSCOM to adequately make a determination of fairness and reasonableness of price. This rule will have no impact on air operators or certificated air carriers not participating in the CRAF program. Nor does it impact non-CRAF services provided by CRAF participants.
Section 366, Ratemaking Procedures for Civil Reserve Air Fleet, is being amended by adding a new section that authorizes the Secertary of Defense to determine a fair and reasonable rate of payment for airlift services provided to the Department of Defense by air carriers who are participants in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet program; and authority to prescribe regulations to implement rate making procedures.
USTRANSCOM published a proposed rule in the
In the proposed rule, which published in the
First, compliance with certain principles is not possible for airline carriers. Airline accounting systems are established to report costs in accordance with the Department of Transportation
Secondly, selected cost principles must be modified in order to maintain uniformity across the industry when developing a uniform rate of payment. An example of this can be found at FAR 31.205-11, Depreciation. This principle requires contractors limit depreciation to the amount used for financial accounting purposes and in a manner consistent with depreciation policies and procedures followed in the same segment of non-Government business. Under the Department's ratemaking process, all depreciation values are pre-established in order to maintain uniformity within the rate. These depreciation values are as indicated in the MOU. Therefore, the FAR cost principle outlining depreciation requirements cannot be applicable to the ratemaking process.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, and if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E. O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. It has been determined that 32 CFR part 243 is not an economically significant regulatory action and is also not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804, nor is it a significant rule that requires review by OMB. The rule does not:
(1) Have an annual affect to the economy in excess of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy; a section of the economy; productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State, local or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another Agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in these Executive Orders.
Additionally, participation in the CRAF program is voluntary. All willing carriers meeting the technical requirements of CRAF will receive a contract. The final rule does not add additional requirements to those that have been historically required by the CRAF contract and ratemaking process. The final rule clarifies existing and historical procedures utilized by USTRANSCOM for carriers participating in the CRAF program.
It has been certified that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.
DoD certifies this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Executive Order 13132 requires that Executive departments and agencies identify regulatory actions that have significant federalism implications. A regulation has federalism implications if it has substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship or distribution of power between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government.
The provisions of this part, as required by 10 U.S.C. 9511a, have no substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship or distribution of power between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government. Therefore, the Department has determined that the proposed part has no federalism implications that warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment in accordance with Executive Order 13132.
Air fleet, Armed forces reserves, Contracts.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Title 32, Code of Federal Regulations is amended by adding part 243 to read as follows:
Section 366 National Defense Authorization Act for FY12 (Pub. L. 112-81)
10 U.S.C. Chap 931, Section 9511a.
The Secretary of Defense (Secretary) is required to determine a fair and reasonable rate of payment for airlift services provided to the Department of Defense (DoD) by civil air carriers and operators (hereinafter collectively referred to as “air carriers”) who are participants in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet program (CRAF). This regulation provides the authority and methodology for such ratemaking and designates the United Stated Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) as the rate setter for negotiated uniform rates for DoD airlift service contracts in support of the CRAF. This methodology supports a viable CRAF mobilization base that ensures sufficient capacity in time of war, contingency and humanitarian relief efforts.
This section governs all contracts with the Department of Defense where awards to the air carriers, either through individual contracts or teaming arrangements, are commensurate with the relative amount of airlift capability committed to the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF).
The ratemaking procedures contained within this section apply only to Airlift Service contracts awarded based on CRAF commitment. Competitively awarded contracts may be used by the Department of Defense when it considers such contracts to be in the best interest of the government. See §§ 243.5(b) and 243.6 for exclusions to ratemaking.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To determine allocation of these costs to USTRANSCOM service, USTRANSCOM considers carrier reported DOT Form 41 operational data, as well as USTRANSCOM S-1, S-2 mileage reports, fuel reports, and other relevant information requested by the contracting officer.
(d)
(e)
(i)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(ii)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(f)
(g)
(h)
For the purpose of rate making, the average fleet cost of aircraft proposed by the carriers for the forecast year is used. Actual awards to CRAF carriers are based upon the aircraft accepted into the CRAF program. The Secretary may, in determining the quantity of business to be received under an airlift services contract for which the rate of payment is determined in accordance with subsection (a) of 10 U.S.C. 9511a, use as a factor the relative amount of airlift capability committed by each air carrier to the CRAF.
(a)
(b)
Domestic CRAF is handled differently than international CRAF in that aircraft committed does not factor into the amount of business awarded during peacetime. If domestic CRAF is activated, carriers will be paid in accordance with pre-negotiated prices that have been determined fair and reasonable, not a uniform rate.
An airlift services contract for which the rate of payment is determined in accordance with subsection (a) of 10 U.S.C. 9511a shall not be subject to the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 2306a, or to the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of 41 U.S.C. 1502. Specifically, contracts establishing rates for services provided by air carriers who are participants in the CRAF program are not subject to the cost or pricing data provision of the Truth in Negotiations Act (10 U.S.C. 2306a) or the Cost Accounting Standards (41 U.S.C. 1502). CRAF carriers will, however, continue to submit data in accordance with the MOU and the DOT, Form 41.
In establishing fair and reasonable rate of payments for airlift service contracts in support of CRAF, USTRANSCOM, in accordance with10 U.S.C. 9511a, procedures differ from the following provisions of FAR Part 31 and DFARS Part 231, as supplemented:
USTRANSCOM may participate in carrier site visits, as required to determine the reasonableness or verification of cost and pricing data.
Carriers should first address concerns to the ratemaking team for resolution. Ratemaking issues that are not resolved to the carrier's satisfaction through discussions with the ratemaking team may be directed to the USTRANSCOM contracting officer.
If resolution of ratemaking issues cannot be made by the USTRANSCOM contracting officer, concerned parties shall contact the USTRANSCOM Ombudsman appointed to hear and facilitate the resolution of such concerns. In the event a ratemaking issue is not resolved through the ombudsman process, the carrier may request a final agency decision from the Director of Acquisition, USTRANSCOM.
The air carrier is required to retain copies of data submitted to support rate determination for a period identified in Subpart 4.7 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Contractor Records Retention.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Harvey Canal Railroad Bascule Bridge across Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, mile 0.2 west of Harvey Lock (Harvey Canal), at Harvey, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. This deviation provides for the bridge to remain closed to navigation for 175 consecutive hours to replace the north side bronze pinion bearing bushing to the drawbridge.
This deviation is effective from noon on Friday, June 19, 2015 until 7 p.m. on Friday, June 26, 2015.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0448] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Donna Gagliano, Bridge Specialist, Coast Guard; telephone 504-671-2128, email
The New Orleans and Gulf Coast Railway Company has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the Harvey Canal Railroad Bascule Bridge across Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, mile 0.2 west of Harvey Lock (Harvey Canal), at Harvey, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 9 feet above mean high water in the closed-to-navigation position and 75 feet above mean high water in the open-to-navigation position.
Presently, the bridge opens on signal according to operating regulation Tile 33 CFR 117.5. This deviation is effective from noon on Friday, June 19, 2015 until 7 p.m. on Friday, June 26, 2015. This deviation provides for the bridge to remain closed-to-navigation for 175 consecutive hours.
For the duration of the replacement of the bronze pinion bearing bushings, vessels will not be allowed to pass through the bridge in order to complete the needed replacement.
The closure is necessary in order to replace the north side bronze pinion bearing bushing to the drawbridge essential for the continued safe operation of the draw span of the railroad bridge. The Coast Guard has coordinated the closure with waterway users, industry, and other Coast Guard units. It has been determined that this closure will not have a significant effect on vessel traffic.
Navigation on the waterway consists mainly of tugs with tows. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is an alternate route available via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (Algiers Alternate Route) to avoid unnecessary delays.
The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulation is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone around the TUG THOMAS and BARGE OCEANUS during the loading and outbound transit of three oversized ship to shore (STS) cranes on the Savannah River from the Georgia Ports Authority, Garden City Terminal. This safety zone facilitates the safe loading and outbound transit of three oversized STS cranes from the Port of Savannah. A fixed safety zone will be enforced during the loading of the cranes on the barge and a moving safety zone will be enforced while the TUG THOMAS and BARGE OCEANUS are transiting outbound the Savannah River. This regulation is necessary to protect life and property on the navigable waters of the Savannah River due to the hazards associated with the transport of these oversized cranes. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Savannah or a designated representative.
This rule is effective without actual notice from May 28, 2015 until 11:59 p.m., July 1, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from May 14, 2015 until May 28, 2015.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2014-0280. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Christopher McElvaine, Marine Safety Unit Savannah Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (912) 652-4353 ext 221, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive notice of the transit until April 6, 2015. Publishing a NPRM and delaying its effective date would be impracticable and contrary to public interest because immediate action is needed to protect the TUG THOMAS, BARGE OCEANUS, other vessels, and mariners from the hazards associated with the transit operations of three STS cranes from Georgia Ports Authority.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for
The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The purpose of the rule is to ensure the safety of life and vessels on a navigable waterway of the United States during the TUG THOMAS and BARGE OCEANUS ship to shore crane loading and outbound transit.
The Coast Guard is establishing this safety zone to facilitate the safe loading of cranes and outbound transit of the TUG THOMAS and the BARGE OCEANUS on the Savannah River. The large STS cranes pose a danger to other vessels that may meet, pass or attempt to overtake the TUG THOMAS and BARGE OCEANUS in the narrow waterway of the Savannah River. This safety zone is necessary to protect the safety of lives and persons during this transit.
A moving and fixed safety zone will be established when the TUG THOMAS and BARGE OCEANUS commence loading operations and begin outbound transit. It will cover all waters of the Savannah River one nautical mile ahead and astern of the TUG THOMAS and BARGE OCEANUS. During crane loading operations no vessel may pass TUG THOMAS and BARGE OCEANUS unless authorized by the COTP Savannah or designated representative and during the vessel's outbound transit, no other vessel may meet, pass, or overtake the TUG THOMAS and BARGE OCEANUS, unless authorized by the COTP Savannah or a designated representative.
Entry into the safety zone is prohibited for all vessels unless specifically authorized by the COTP Savannah or a designated representative. U.S. Coast Guard assets or designated representatives will enforce this safety zone, and coordinate vessel movements into the zone when safe to minimize the zone's impact on vessel movements. Persons or vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone may contact the Captain of the Port Savannah by telephone at (912) 652-4353, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone is granted by the Captain of the Port Savannah or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Savannah or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zones by Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
This rule will only be enforced during loading operations and the outbound transit of the TUG THOMAS and BARGE OCEANUS and will remain in effect until the vessels have left the harbor. The COTP Savannah or a designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notice to mariners of the enforcement periods for this safety zone.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: This safety zone will only be enforced during times of loading operations and the outbound transit of the TUG THOMAS and BARGE OCEANUS on the Savannah River. Once the TUG THOMAS and BARGE OCEANUS have exited the Savannah River, the safety zone will be terminated. The transit of the TUG THOMAS and BARGE OCEANUS is expected to take six to eight hours.
The Coast Guard has notified the Georgia Ports Authority and Savannah Pilots Association of the needs, conditions, and effective dates and times of the safety zone so that they may schedule arriving and departing vessels that may be affected by this safety zone to minimize shipping delays. The presence of other moored vessels is not expected to impede the safe loading and outbound transit of the TUG THOMAS and BARGE OCEANUS, and sufficient channel width is anticipated while the TUG THOMAS and BARGE OCEANUS are moored so that other vessels may transit through the area.
Notifications of the enforcement periods of this safety zone will be made to the marine community through broadcast notice to mariners. Representatives of the COTP will be on-scene to coordinate the movements of vessels seeking to enter the safety zone. These representatives will authorize vessel transits into the zone to the maximum safely allowable during the TUG THOMAS and BARGE OCEANUS
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the Savannah River while TUG THOMAS and BARGE OCEANUS is transiting outbound on the Savannah River and while moored at Georgia Ports Authority. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (1) The COTP Savannah may consider granting vessels permission to enter into the moving and fixed safety zone if conditions allow for such transit to be conducted safely, and (2) the Coast Guard will issue a broadcast notice to mariners informing the public of the safety zone.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the creation of a temporary safety zone. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons or vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zones may contact the Captain of the Port Savannah by telephone at (912) 652-4353, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone is granted by the Captain of the Port Savannah or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Savannah or a designated representative.
(3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by Broadcast Notice to Mariners and on-scene designated representatives.
(e)
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The purpose of this document is to update the current schedule of civil penalties for violations of FRA's grade crossing safety regulations by adding recommended civil penalty amounts for violations of specific requirements contained in a recently added subpart. That subpart prescribes requirements that certain railroads establish emergency notification systems (ENS) for receiving toll-free telephone calls reporting various unsafe conditions at highway-rail grade crossings and pathway grade crossings, and for taking certain actions in response to those calls.
Effective May 28, 2015.
Beth Crawford, Transportation Specialist, Grade Crossing Safety and Trespass Prevention, Office of Safety Analysis, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6288),
FRA is revising the penalty schedule at appendix A to 49 CFR part 234 to add recommended civil penalty amounts for violations of specific requirements contained in subpart E, Emergency Notification Systems [ENS] for Telephonic Reporting of Unsafe Conditions at Highway-Rail and Pathway Grade Crossings. (
Under authority delegated from the Secretary of Transportation, FRA adds these recommended penalty amounts to the penalty schedule consistent with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 21301(a)(2), which provides, in pertinent part, that:
Under the separate authority of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 as amended, FRA has periodically adjusted for inflation the amounts of the minimum, ordinary maximum, and aggravated maximum civil penalties for a violation of this part. Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, 28 U.S.C. 2461, note, as amended by Section 31001(s)(1) of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-373, April 26, 1996. Currently, the minimum penalty is $650, the ordinary maximum civil penalty is $25,000; and the aggravated maximum civil penalty is $105,000.
After FRA issues a civil penalty against an entity, FRA may adjust or compromise the amount of the civil penalty based on a wide variety of mitigating factors, which include: (1) The nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation; (2) with respect to the entity, the degree of culpability, any history of violations, the ability to pay, and any effect on the ability to continue to do business; and (3) other matters that justice requires. 49 U.S.C. 21301(a)(3).
FRA's revision of appendix A is a general statement of policy under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Consequently, notice and an opportunity for comment are not required, and this amendment is made effective upon publication.
Highway safety, Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, State and local governments.
In consideration of the foregoing, FRA amends part 234 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20152, 20160, 21301, 21304, 21311, 22501 note; Pub. L. 110-432, Div. A., Sec. 202; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues this final rule to amend the regulations implementing the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan. This action will change the minimum number of traps per trawl to allow fishing with a single trap in certain Massachusetts and Rhode Island state waters; and modifies the requirement to use one endline on trawls within certain areas in Massachusetts state waters. Also, this rule creates a
This rule is effective May 28, 2015, except for the amendment to § 229.32(b)(3), which is effective July 1, 2015, and the amendment to § 229.32(b)(1)(i) and (ii), which is effective September 1, 2015.
Copies of the supporting documents for this action, as well as the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team meeting summaries and supporting documents, may be obtained from the Plan Web site (
Kate Swails, NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 978-282-8481,
NMFS published an amendment to the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (Plan) on June 27, 2014 (79 FR 36586) to address large whale entanglement risks associated with vertical line (or buoy lines) from commercial trap/pot fisheries. This amendment included gear modifications, gear setting requirements, a seasonal closure (Massachusetts Restricted Area) and gear marking for both the trap/pot and the gillnet fisheries.
In consultation with the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team (Team), NMFS developed protocols for considering modifications or exemptions to the regulations implementing the Plan. Following these protocols, on August 18, 2014, the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) submitted a proposal to modify the Massachusetts Bay Restricted Area and to exempt several areas from the gear setting requirements to address safety and economic concerns raised by their industry members.
The DMF proposal adequately addressed the Team's established protocols and criteria for considering modifications or exemptions to the Plan's regulations, which enabled NMFS to consult with the Team on the DMF proposal. We decided to address the modifications to the Massachusetts Restricted Area and the exemption of the minimum number of traps per trawl requirements separately, beginning with the Massachusetts Restricted Area. After discussions with the Team, NMFS
Along with the DMF proposal, NMFS also received proposals from other state partners requesting certain waters be exempt from the minimum number of traps per trawl requirements due to safety concerns. The conservation members of the Team also submitted a proposal in an effort to offset this potential increase in vertical lines should NMFS approve the proposed state exemptions. NMFS convened the Team in January 2015 to discuss these proposals. At the conclusion of the January meeting, the Team, by near consensus, recommended that we amend the Plan as proposed by the states. The Team also recommended that the current gear marking scheme be updated to include unique marks for those fishing single traps in the proposed exempted areas and a unique mark for both gillnets and trap/pots fished in Jeffreys Ledge and Jordan Basin. The Team's recommendations form the basis for the action described below.
This action exempts Rhode Island state waters and portions of Massachusetts state waters from the minimum number of traps per trawl requirement and allow single traps to be fished in certain state waters (see Figures 1 and 2, respectively). This exemption is based on safety and financial concerns raised by the industry. In addition, in Rhode Island state waters and portions of Massachusetts state waters (particularly in Southern Massachusetts waters) the co-occurrence of fishing effort and whale distribution is minimal. According to DMF, along the Outer Cape there are dynamic tides and featureless substrate that dictate the use of single traps in this area. Massachusetts also has a student lobster permit that allows for permit holders to fish alone and with small boats. Single traps are used in this fishery and other inshore waters as a matter of safety.
In addition, those fishing in all Massachusetts state waters are required to have one endline for trawls less than or equal to three traps. The current requirement of one endline for trawls less than or equal to five traps remains in place in all other management areas. Larger trawls (
An exemption from the minimum number of traps per trawl requirement is also granted for a
Boats within this
This action implements a gear marking scheme that builds off the current color combinations and the size and frequency of the current gear marking requirements. In an effort to learn if entanglements occur in these newly exempted areas, this action adds a unique gear mark to those single vertical lines fished in the exempted areas of Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Matinicus Island Group, Maine. Also, this action proposes unique trap/pot and gillnet gear marking in two important high use areas for both humpback and right whales—Jeffreys Ledge (Figure 3) and Jordan Basin (Figure 4). The mark must equal 12-inches (30.5 cm) in length and buoy lines must be marked three times (top, middle, bottom) with the appropriate unique color combination for that area.
There will be a phased-in implementation of the new gear marking. Industry would have until July 1, 2015 to mark gear fished in the newly exempted areas and until September 1, 2015 to mark gear in Jeffreys Ledge and Jordan Basin areas.
NMFS published the proposed rule to amend the Plan in the
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this action is not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This action contains collection of information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), specifically, the marking of fishing gear. The collection of information requirement was approved by OMB under control number (0648-0364). Public comment was sought regarding whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance and function of the agency, including: the practical utility of the information; the accuracy of the burden estimate; the opportunities to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and the ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see
This revision to the collection of information requirement applies to a total of 399 vessels. The estimated number of vessels affected by the overall gear marking provisions in the Plan is 4,008. The estimated number of those vessels affected only by the proposed amendment is 399. Model vessel types were developed for gillnet fisheries, lobster trap/pot fisheries, and other trap/pot fisheries. Total burden hours for all affected vessels in the Plan are 35,571 hours over three years or 11,857 hours per year. Total cost burden for all affected vessels in the Plan is $24,758 over three years or $8,253 per year. The total cost burden for those vessels affected by the proposed amendment is $3,450 over three years or $1,150 per year. For more information, please see the PRA approval associated with this rulemaking.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, NMFS prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for this final rule.
A description of this action, its objectives, and the legal basis for this action can be found in the Summary section and earlier in the Supplementary Information section of this final rule, and are not repeated here. This rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other federal rules.
The small entities affected by this rule are commercial gillnet and trap/pot fishermen. The geographic range of the action is the Northeast Atlantic waters. By changing the minimum number of traps per trawl requirement to allow single traps in the lobster trap/pot fishery there are potentially 182 vessels that would be affected. Additionally, in the other trap/pot fisheries, there are potentially 123 vessels that would be affected. All vessels are assumed to be small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Alternatives were evaluated using model vessels, each of which represents a group of vessels that share similar operating characteristics and would face similar requirements under a given regulatory alternative. Both an upper and lower bound of annual economic savings for lobster and other trap/pot were analyzed. A summary of analysis describing the potential range of savings resulting from allowing singles to be fished follows:
1. NMFS considered a “no action” or status quo alternative (Alternative 1) that would result in no changes to the current measures under the Plan and, as such, would result in no additional economic effects on the fishing industry.
2. Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, will modify the Plan by allowing the use of single traps in Rhode Island state waters, in most Massachusetts state waters, and some waters around Maine Islands. This change will constitute an exemption to the minimum two-trap-per-trawl requirement specified for these areas under the 2014 vertical line rulemaking. Those who until now have fished single traps in these areas will avoid the costs associated with converting their gear
Overall, the economic impacts of the preferred alternative results in a vessel cost savings that will equal or range from $163,200 to $345,700 for lobster trap/pot vessels and $257,00 to $512,500 for other trap/pot vessels when compared to the no action alternative, resulting in a largely positive impact.
NMFS has determined that this action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the approved coastal management programs of Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. This determination was submitted for review by the responsible state agencies under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. The following state agreed with NMFS's determination: New Hampshire. Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island did not respond; therefore, consistency is inferred.
This final rule contains policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. Accordingly, the Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs provided notice of the proposed action to the appropriate official(s) of affected state, local, and/or tribal governments. No concerns were raised by the states contacted; hence, NMFS will infer that these states concur with the finding that the regulations for amending the Plan were consistent with fundamental federalism principles and federalism policymaking criteria.
An informal consultation under the ESA for this final rule to modify the Plan was concluded on March 30, 2015. As a result of the informal consultation, the Regional Administrator determined that the measures to modify the Plan do not meet the triggers for reinitiation of consultation. NMFS completed an ESA Section 7 consultation on the implementation of the Plan on July 15, 1997, and concluded that the action was not likely to adversely affect any ESA-listed species under NMFS jurisdiction. Two subsequent consultations were completed in 2004 and 2008, when NMFS changed some of the measures in the Plan. An informal consultation on the most recent vertical line rule was completed on August 16, 2013. NMFS, as both the action agency and the consulting agency, reviewed the changes and determined that the measures as revised through rulemaking would not affect ESA-listed species under NMFS jurisdiction in a manner that had not been previously considered.
The Assistant Administrator finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness. The contents of this action serve to remove existing commercial fishing restrictions and to prevent negative safety impacts from otherwise occurring as the current minimum trap per trawl requirements would have been effective beginning June 1, 2015. Delaying the effectiveness of this rule is contrary to the public interest, because any delay will prevent the removal of the ban on single traps in certain state waters implemented by this rule, thereby increasing safety risk, and providing no additional meaningful benefit to large whales. Accordingly, the 30-day delay in effectiveness is both unnecessary and contrary to the public interest, and as such, portions of this rule will become effective immediately.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Fisheries, Marine mammals, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 229 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361
(a) * * *
(3)
(ii)
The regulations in this section do not apply to waters landward of a line connecting the following points (Quoddy Narrows/US-Canada border to Odiornes Pt., Portsmouth, New Hampshire):
New Hampshire state waters are exempt from the minimum number of traps per trawl requirement in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section. Harbor waters landward of the following lines are exempt from all the regulations in this section.
Rhode Island state waters are exempt from the minimum number of traps per trawl requirement in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section. Harbor waters landward of the following lines are exempt from all the regulations in this section.
The regulations in this section do not apply to waters landward of a line that follows the territorial sea baseline through Block Island Sound (Watch Hill Point, RI, to Montauk Point, NY).
The regulations in this section do not apply to waters landward of the first bridge over any embayment, harbor, or inlet in Massachusetts. The following Massachusetts state waters are exempt from the minimum number of traps per trawl requirement in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section:
From the New Hampshire border to 70° W longitude south of Cape Cod, waters in EEZ Nearshore Management Area 1 and the Outer Cape Lobster Management Area (as defined in the American Lobster Fishery regulations under § 697.18 of this title), from the shoreline to 3 nautical miles from shore, and including waters of Cape Cod Bay southeast of a straight line connecting 41° 55.8′ N lat., 70°8.4′ W long. and 41°47.2′ N lat., 70°19.5′ W long.
From 70° W longitude south of Cape Cod to the Rhode Island border, all Massachusetts state waters in EEZ Nearshore Management Area 2 and the Outer Cape Lobster Management Area (as defined in the American Lobster Fishery regulations under § 697.18 of this title), including federal waters of Nantucket Sound west of 70° W longitude.
The regulations in this section do not apply to waters landward of a line connecting the following points from 32°34.717′ N. lat., 80°08.565′ W. long. to 32°34.686′ N. lat., 80°08.642′ W. long. (Captain Sams Inlet)
(6)
(b)
(i)
(ii)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(3)
(c) * * *
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(A) The breaking strength of the weak links must not exceed the breaking strength listed in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section for a specified management area.
(B) The weak link must be chosen from the following list approved by NMFS: swivels, plastic weak links, rope of appropriate breaking strength, hog rings, rope stapled to a buoy stick, or other materials or devices approved in writing by the Assistant Administrator. A brochure illustrating the techniques for making weak links is available from the Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Region upon request.
(C) Weak links must break cleanly leaving behind the bitter end of the line. The bitter end of the line must be free of any knots when the weak link breaks. Splices are not considered to be knots for the purposes of this provision.
(iii) Table of Area Specific Gear Requirements
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
This final rule implements the New England Fishery Management Council's recommended fishing year 2015-2017 specifications and management measures for the small-mesh multispecies fishery, clarifies what measures can be modified in a specifications package, and corrects the northern red hake accountability measure. This action is necessary to ensure that catch of these species does not exceed applicable limits.
Effective May 28, 2015.
Copies of the specifications document, consisting of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and other supporting documents, are available on request from Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. This document is also available from the following internet addresses:
Jason Berthiaume, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9177.
The small-mesh multispecies fishery is managed primarily through a serious of exemptions from the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The small-mesh multispecies fishery is composed of five stocks of three species of hakes (northern and southern silver hake, northern and southern red hake, and offshore hake). It is managed separately from the other stocks of groundfish such as cod, haddock, and flounders, primarily because the fishing is done with much smaller mesh and the fishery does not generally catch these other stocks. Amendment 19 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP (April 4, 2013; 78 FR 20260) established a process and framework for setting the small-mesh multispecies catch specifications.
The New England Fishery Management Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) met on August 26, 2014, to discuss the specifications and to recommend ABCs for the 2015-2017 small-mesh fishery. The FMP's implementing regulations require the involvement of an SSC in the specification process. Following the SSC, the Whiting Oversight Committee met on September 9 and October 30, 2014, to discuss and recommend small-mesh specifications. The Council approved the final specifications for recommendation to NMFS on November 17, 2014.
The purpose of this action is to set the specifications for small-mesh multispecies for the 2015-2017 fishing years. These specifications include overfishing limit (OFL), acceptable biological catch (ABC), and total allowable landings (TAL) for each of the small-mesh multispecies stocks. In 2012 and 2013, northern red hake catch rates exceeded the annual catch limits (ACL) and the ABC. Northern red hake was also determined to be experiencing overfishing. To reduce the risk of continued overfishing on this stock and better constrain catch to the ACL, this action implements the Council's recommended reduction of the northern red hake possession limit from 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) to 3,000 lb (1,361 kg) per trip. It also creates a new trigger point at which possession limits are reduced inseason such that when landings of northern red hake reach 45 percent of the TAL, the possession limit will be reduced to 1,500 lb (680 kg). The possession limits and inseason trigger accountability measures for the other stocks of small-mesh multispecies remain unchanged from 2012-2014.
This final rule also includes a correction to the small-mesh accountability measures and clarifies what measures can be modified in a small-mesh multispecies specifications action.
The Council process for developing its specifications recommendations for small-mesh multispecies can be found in the proposed rule for this action published in the
This action reduces the northern red hake possession limit from 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) in place for fishing year 2014 to 3,000 lb (1,361 kg) for fishing years 2015-2017. This reduction in possession limit is intended to delay the in-season accountability measure (AM) until later in the year and to reduce the potential for northern red hake catches
This measure implements an additional inseason possession limit reduction trigger for northern red hake when 45 percent of the TAL is reached. For fishing years 2015-2017 the northern red hake possession limit will be reduced from 3,000 lb (1,361 kg) to 1,500 lb (680 kg) when landings reach this point.
When developing the rulemaking for this action, we determined that the current regulations governing the specifications process do not fully reflect the Council's intent in Amendment 19 regarding the scope of measures that can be implemented through the specifications process. Amendment 19 specified that the Council shall specify on at least a 3-year basis the OFL, ABC, ACLs, and TALs for each small-mesh multispecies stock as well as the corresponding possession limits, including inseason possession limit triggers to be consistent with the revised specification recommendations and estimates of scientific and management uncertainty from the SSC. However, the implementing regulations for Amendment 19 did not specify that adjustments to possession limits and the inseason possession limit triggers were among the items that could be modified in a specifications action. Consistent with section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, this rule corrects this inconsistency by including possession limits and inseason possession limit triggers in small-mesh multispecies specifications regulations.
When the specifications were being developed, the Whiting Plan Development Team identified an error in the previous set of specifications (
On April 8, 2015, NMFS published proposed specifications for public notice and comment. One comment was received. This comment was not relevant to the rule.
The Administrator, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, determined that this final rule is necessary for the conservation and management of the small-mesh multispecies fishery and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this action is not significant for the purpose of E.O. 12866.
The Assistant Administrator also finds good cause under authority contained in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the otherwise effective 30-day delay in effective date. Because the fishing year began on May 1, 2015, delaying the effectiveness of this action, particularly the northern red hake measures (possession limit reduction, implement additional possession limit trigger, correct accountability measures trigger rate) would not be in the best interest of the fishery resource or vessels fishing for small-mesh multispecies. NMFS could not promulgate this rule sooner because necessary information from the Council was not delivered until the end of March 2015. Although some of the northern red hake measures are restrictive in nature because they reduce the possession limit and implement an additional possession limit reduction trigger, they are designed to slow catch rates and thus increase the length of the overall season for the benefit of the fishermen and the fishery. Delaying implementation of these red hake measures could undermine in the short-term the intended benefits of extending the fishing season and creating better market conditions. In 2012 and 2013, northern red hake catch rates exceeded the ACL and ABC and the possession limit was reduced to the incidental level earlier in the season than anticipated. Delaying these measures again could result in northern red hake ABC and ACL overages and the reduction of the northern red hake possession limits to incidental levels earlier in the season than desired as occurred in 2012 and 2013, thus undermining the intent of the rule. Therefore, although the northern red hake measures impose some restrictions, having the measures effective upon publication is expected to be beneficial for the industry by extending the season and beneficial for the resource by helping to prevent ACL and ABC overages.
Because the specifications for the three other stocks remain the same or, as for northern silver hake, increased, a delay is not needed because they automatically remain in place or relieve a restriction. Thus there would be no benefit to delaying the effectiveness of the specifications because they do not impose any new restrictions.
A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) was prepared pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 604(a), and incorporates the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, NMFS's responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. A copy of the EA/IRFA is available from the Council (see
The preamble to the proposed rule included a detailed summary of the analyses contained in the IRFA, and that discussion is not repeated here.
NMFS received no comments in response to the IRFA. One comment was received on this rule, which was not relevant to the rule or the IRFA.
On June 12, 2014, the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued an interim final rule revising the small business size standards for several industries effective July 14, 2014 (79 FR 33467). The rule increased the size standard from $19.0 million to $20.5 million for finfish fishing, from $5.0 to $5.5 million for shellfish fishing, and from $7.0 million to $7.5 million for other marine fishing, for-hire businesses, and marinas. The small-mesh multispecies fishery falls under the finfish category and, thus, has a threshold of $20.5 million for determining small versus large entities. However, having different size standards for different types of commercial fishing activities creates difficulties in categorizing business that participate in multiple fishing related activities, which is typically the case in the fishing industry.
In order to fish for small-mesh multispecies, a vessel owner must be
No reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements are included in this final rule.
During the development of these specifications, NMFS and the Council considered ways to reduce the regulatory burden on, and provide flexibility for, the regulated entities in this action. The specifications and alternatives are described in detail in the specifications document, which includes an EA, RIR, and IRFA (available at
This action revises the ACL specifications for northern and southern stocks of silver and red hakes for fishing years 2015-2017. The specifications are largely unchanged from previous years with the exception of northern silver hake, which is significantly increased. The specifications do not reduce the quotas and are therefore not restrictive in nature and, therefore, are not expected to result in significant positive or minor economic impacts on small entities.
In general, the remainder of the measures in this action involves preventing northern red hake overages. Overall, this rule minimizes economic impacts by slowing the catch rate of northern red hake while still allowing small-mesh vessels to land northern red hake at more sustainable levels. The previous measures were resulting in ABC and ACL overages and the implementation of restrictive accountability measure possession limit reductions earlier in the fishing season than desired. The red hake measures in this action are designed to slow catch rates and extend the length of the season creating the anticipated more consistent market conditions and prices that are expected should be beneficial for the small-mesh fishery. Alternatives to these measures were analyzed and the final combination of northern red hake measures in this rule were determined to be the optimum combination of alternatives to prevent future ACL and ABC overages and minimize the economic impact on small entities.
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(d) * * *
(4)
(5)
(b) * * *
(4)
(5) * * *
(iii)
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice of proposed rulemaking with request for public comment.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) invites public comment on a proposed rule (proposed rule) that would amend the Board's liquidity coverage ratio requirement (LCR) to include certain U.S. municipal securities as high-quality liquid assets (HQLA). This proposed rule includes as level 2B liquid assets under the LCR general obligation securities of a public sector entity that meet the same criteria as corporate debt securities that are included as level 2B liquid assets, subject to limits that are intended to address the unique structure of the U.S. municipal securities market. This proposed rule would apply to all Board-regulated institutions that are subject to the LCR, which include: (1) Bank holding companies, certain savings and loan holding companies, and state member banks that, in each case, have $250 billion or more in total consolidated assets or $10 billion or more in on-balance sheet foreign exposure; (2) state member banks with $10 billion or more in total consolidated assets that are consolidated subsidiaries of bank holding companies described in (1); and (3) nonbank financial companies designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council for Board supervision to which the Board has applied the LCR by rule or order. This proposed rule would also permit bank holding companies and certain savings and loan holding companies, in each case with $50 billion or more in total consolidated assets that are subject to the Board's modified liquidity coverage ratio to rely on the proposed expanded definition of HQLA.
Comments on this notice of proposed rulemaking must be received by July 24, 2015.
When submitting comments, please consider submitting your comments by email or fax because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the Board may be subject to delay. You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. R-1514, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
Constance Horsley, Assistant Director, (202) 452-5239, Adam S. Trost, Senior Supervisory Financial Analyst, (202) 452-3814, or J. Kevin Littler, Senior Supervisory Financial Analyst, (202) 475-6677, Risk Policy, Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation; Dafina Stewart, Counsel, (202) 452-3876, or Adam J. Cohen, Senior Attorney, (202) 912-4658, Legal Division, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets, Washington, DC 20551. For the hearing impaired only, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD), (202) 263-4869.
On September 3, 2014, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (collectively, the agencies) adopted a final rule that implemented a quantitative liquidity requirement
Under the LCR, only a limited number of asset classes that have historically been used as a source of liquidity in the United States during periods of significant stress and have a demonstrable record of liquidity are included as HQLA. In identifying the types of assets that qualify as HQLA under the Basel III Liquidity Framework the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision considered several factors, including the asset's risk profile and characteristics of the market for the asset (
The LCR divides HQLA into three categories of assets: Level 1, level 2A, and level 2B liquid assets. Specifically, level 1 liquid assets are limited to balances held at a Federal Reserve Bank and foreign central bank withdrawable reserves, all securities issued or unconditionally guaranteed as to timely payment of principal and interest by the U.S. Government, and certain highly liquid, high credit quality sovereign, international organization and multilateral development bank debt securities. Level 1 liquid assets, which are the highest quality and most liquid assets, may be included in a covered company's HQLA amount without limit and without haircuts. Level 2A and 2B liquid assets have characteristics that are associated with being relatively stable and significant sources of liquidity, but not to the same degree as level 1 liquid assets. Level 2A liquid assets include certain obligations issued or guaranteed by a U.S. government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) and certain obligations issued or guaranteed by a sovereign entity or a multilateral development bank that are not eligible to be treated as level 1 liquid assets. The LCR subjects level 2A liquid assets to a 15 percent haircut and limits the aggregate of level 2A and level 2B liquid assets to no more than 40 percent of the total HQLA amount. Level 2B liquid assets, which are liquid assets that generally exhibit more volatility than level 2A liquid assets, are subject to a 50 percent haircut and may not exceed 15 percent of the total HQLA amount. Under the LCR, level 2B liquid assets include certain corporate debt securities and certain common equity shares of publicly traded companies. Level 2 liquid assets, including all level 2B liquid assets, must be liquid and readily marketable as defined in the LCR to be included as HQLA.
The agencies received a substantial number of comments in connection with the LCR rulemaking
In the
However, the Board indicated a willingness to continue to study the question of whether at least some U.S. municipal securities should be permitted under some circumstances to be included as HQLA. The Board now proposes to allow Board-regulated institutions to include as level 2B liquid assets under the LCR U.S. general obligation municipal securities that exhibit characteristics that are comparable to other asset classes included as level 2B liquid assets. The proposal contains a variety of criteria and limitations designed to ensure that U.S. general obligation municipal securities included as HQLA are liquid and appropriately valued for purposes of the LCR.
This proposed rule would apply to all Board-regulated institutions that are subject to the LCR, which include: (1) Bank holding companies, certain savings and loan holding companies, and state member banks that, in each case, have $250 billion or more in total consolidated assets or $10 billion or more in on-balance sheet foreign exposure; (2) state member banks with $10 billion or more in total consolidated assets that are consolidated subsidiaries of bank holding companies subject to the LCR described in (1); and (3) nonbank financial companies designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council for Board supervision to which the Board has applied the LCR by rule or order. This proposed rule would also allow bank holding companies and certain savings and loan holding companies, in each case with $50 billion or more in total consolidated assets, that are subject to the Board's modified minimum liquidity coverage ratio to take advantage of the proposed expanded definition of HQLA.
As described in more detail below, this proposed rule would include limited amounts of U.S. general obligation municipal securities as level 2B liquid assets under the LCR if the securities meet certain criteria. The Board invites comment on all aspects of the proposal including whether these criteria and limitations are appropriate, reasonable, and achieve their intended purposes.
The Board proposes to include U.S. general obligation municipal securities as level 2B liquid assets, rather than as level 2A liquid assets. Municipal securities are less liquid than assets that are included as level 2A liquid assets. For example, the daily trading volume of securities issued or guaranteed by U.S. GSEs far exceeds that of U.S. municipal securities.
As a threshold matter, to qualify as HQLA under the proposal, U.S. general obligation municipal securities must be liquid and readily marketable and meet other criteria consistent with the criteria for corporate debt securities that are included as level 2B liquid assets. These criteria help to ensure comparable treatment between U.S. general obligation municipal securities and corporate debt securities included as HQLA.
Under this proposed rule, U.S. municipal securities would qualify as HQLA only if they are general obligations of the issuing entity. General obligations of U.S. public sector entities, which include bonds or similar obligations that are backed by the full faith and credit of the public sector entities, are assigned a 20 percent risk weight under the Board's risk-based capital rules.
Revenue obligations, which include bonds or similar obligations that are obligations of U.S. public sector entities, but which the public sector entities have committed to repay with revenues from a specific project rather than from general tax funds, are assigned a 50 percent risk weight under the Board's risk-based capital rules.
Consistent with the requirements for corporate debt securities included as level 2B liquid assets, this proposed rule would require that U.S. general obligation municipal securities be “investment grade” under 12 CFR part 1 as of the calculation date.
Consistent with the requirements for corporate debt securities included as level 2B liquid assets under the LCR, this proposed rule would require that U.S. general obligation municipal securities included as level 2B liquid assets be issued by an entity whose obligations have a proven record as a reliable source of liquidity in repurchase or sales markets during a period of significant stress. A Board-regulated institution would be required to demonstrate this record of liquidity reliability and lower volatility during periods of significant stress by showing that the market price of the U.S. general obligation municipal securities or equivalent securities of the issuer declined by no more than 20 percent during a 30 calendar-day period of significant stress, or that the market haircut demanded by counterparties to secured lending and secured funding transactions that were collateralized by such debt securities or equivalent securities of the issuer increased by no more than 20 percentage points during a 30 calendar-day period of significant stress. This percentage decline in value and percentage increase in haircut is the same as those applicable to corporate debt securities included as level 2B liquid assets under the LCR.
As discussed in the Supplementary Information section to the LCR final rule, a Board-regulated institution may demonstrate a historical record that meets this criterion through reference to historical market prices and available funding haircuts of the U.S. general obligation municipal security during periods of significant stress, such as the 2007-2009 financial crisis.
Under this proposed rule, U.S. general obligation municipal securities would qualify as HQLA only if they are not obligations of a financial sector entity and not obligations of a consolidated subsidiary of a financial sector entity. For purposes of this provision, the Board considers a security that is issued or guaranteed by a financial sector entity to be an obligation of the financial sector entity. The LCR defines a financial sector entity to include a regulated financial company, investment company, non-regulated fund, pension fund, investment adviser, or a company that the Board has determined should be treated the same as the foregoing for the purposes of the LCR. Thus, if a bond insurer insures the general obligation municipal securities of a U.S. public sector entity (such insurance is commonly referred to as a “wrap”), the securities would not be eligible for inclusion in HQLA. The Board has proposed to include this criterion in order to exclude U.S. general obligation municipal securities that are valued, in part, based on guarantees provided by financial sector entities, because these financial sector entity guarantees could exhibit similar risks and correlation with Board-regulated institutions (wrong-way risk) during a liquidity stress period, thus overestimating the amount of HQLA that would be available to the banking entity during a liquidity stress period. This criterion is consistent with the Basel III Liquidity Framework and with the requirements imposed on corporate debt securities and publicly traded common equity shares that are included as level 2B liquid assets under the LCR.
This proposed rule would limit the amount of U.S. general obligation municipal securities a Board-regulated institution could include as eligible HQLA based on the total amount outstanding of U.S. general obligation municipal securities with the same CUSIP number, on the average daily trading volume of general obligation municipal securities issued by a particular U.S. municipal issuer, and on a percentage of the institution's total HQLA amount. These limitations are intended to address the unique structure of the U.S. municipal securities market and designed to help ensure sufficient liquidity of the U.S. general obligation municipal securities included in the HQLA amount under the LCR.
Individual issuances of U.S. municipal securities (those with the same CUSIP number) by a single public sector entity are frequently far smaller and more numerous than issuances of debt securities by a single corporate issuer and exhibit a diverse array of maturity dates and interest rates. This is in part due to legal and other restrictions on the size of individual issuances by public sector entities and because U.S. municipal securities are frequently marketed to retail or smaller institutional investors. For example, a very large issuer of U.S. municipal securities (such as a state or large city) may have several hundred individual issuances outstanding. In contrast, a single corporate issuer may have a comparable dollar amount of securities outstanding but with only 20 to 30 individual issuances outstanding. Investors in U.S. municipal securities sometimes purchase a large percentage, including more than 50 percent of the outstanding amount, of the individual issuance.
The Board is concerned that a Board-regulated institution would not be able to monetize a concentration in the holding of a particular issuance of U.S. general obligation municipal securities during a period of significant stress without a material impact on the securities' price. This proposed rule therefore would permit a Board-regulated institution to count U.S. general obligation municipal securities as eligible HQLA only to the extent the fair value of the institutions' securities with the same CUSIP number do not exceed a maximum of 25 percent of the total amount of outstanding securities with the same CUSIP number. Under the proposal, this threshold for inclusion as eligible HQLA would be calculated prior to application of the 50 percent haircut applicable to level 2B liquid assets that is set forth in § 249.21(a)(3) of the LCR final rule. This requirement is designed to ensure that a Board-regulated institution does not include in its HQLA amount a concentration of an individual issuance of U.S. general obligation municipal securities.
The Board is proposing a limit on the amount of securities issued by a single U.S. public sector entity that a Board-regulated institution may include as eligible HQLA, based on the trading volume that the secondary market for the entity's general obligation municipal securities could be expected to withstand before prices materially decline. For each U.S. public sector entity, this proposed rule would limit the aggregate fair value of the general obligation securities that a Board-regulated institution could include as eligible HQLA to two times the average daily trading volume, as measured over the previous four quarters, of all general obligation municipal securities issued by that public sector entity.
The LCR was designed to include as eligible HQLA assets that remain relatively liquid and have multiple buyers and sellers during periods of significant stress, as a covered company may be expected to sell HQLA to meet its cash outflows during such periods. To remain consistent with the design of the LCR, the proposal seeks to include U.S. general obligation municipal securities as eligible HQLA to the extent that they would exhibit liquidity without dramatic loss in value during periods of significant stress. The U.S. municipal securities market includes a large diversity of issuers, size of issuances, and volumes of secondary market trading. The Board analyzed data on the historical trading volume of municipal securities in order to determine the general level of increased sales of municipal securities that could be absorbed by the market during periods of significant stress before prices would materially decline. The proposal would limit the aggregate fair value of the U.S. general obligation municipal securities of a public sector entity that may be included as eligible HQLA to two times the average daily trading volume of all U.S. general obligation municipal securities issued by that public sector entity because, based on the Board's analysis, a holding of two times the average daily trading volume could likely be absorbed by the market within a 30 calendar-day period
Rather than proposing an average daily trading volume limitation on a per-security basis, the Board is proposing a limitation based on the average daily trading volume of all U.S. general obligation municipal securities issued by the public sector entity. Due to the smaller size of many U.S. municipal securities issuances, applying this limit on a per-security basis may unnecessarily restrict a covered company's ability to invest in a particular security that meets the Board-regulated institution's investment criteria and liquidity needs. However, as discussed above, the Board has proposed a separate limitation on the amount of an individual issuance that may be included as eligible HQLA to address the concern that a high concentration of an individual U.S. general obligation municipal security could be included as eligible HQLA.
The Board is proposing to limit the amount of U.S. general obligation municipal securities that are included in a Board-regulated institution's HQLA amount to no more than five percent of its total HQLA amount. This limit is in addition to the 40 percent limit on the aggregate amount of level 2A and level 2B liquid assets and the 15 percent limit on level 2B liquid assets that can be included in the HQLA amount. It also complements the other two limits on U.S. general obligation municipal securities described above, which relate solely to a particular issuance and individual issuers. Although the Board has concluded that certain U.S. general obligation municipal securities are sufficiently liquid to be included as eligible HQLA, the Board proposes to limit the aggregate amount of all U.S. general obligation municipal securities that may be included in the HQLA amount to ensure appropriate diversification of asset classes within a Board-regulated institution's HQLA amount. Consistent with the LCR's limits on level 2A and level 2B liquid assets, this proposed five percent limit applies both on an unadjusted basis and after adjusting the composition of the HQLA amount upon the unwind of certain secured funding transactions, secured lending transactions, asset exchanges and collateralized derivatives transactions.
The proposed five percent limit would be applied to the calculation of the HQLA amount by amending the definitions of the unadjusted excess HQLA amount and the adjusted excess HQLA amount.
Under this proposed rule, the adjusted excess HQLA amount would equal the sum of the adjusted level 2 cap excess amount, the adjusted level 2B cap excess amount, and the adjusted public sector entity cap excess amount. The method of calculating the adjusted public sector entity security cap excess amount is set forth in § 249.21(k) of this proposed rule. Under this provision, the adjusted public sector entity security cap excess amount would be calculated as the greater of: (1) The adjusted public sector entity security liquid asset amount minus the adjusted level 2 cap excess amount minus the adjusted level 2B cap excess amount minus 0.0526 (or 5/95, which is the ratio of the maximum allowable adjusted public sector entity security liquid assets to the adjusted level 1 liquid assets and other adjusted level 2 liquid assets) times the sum of (i) the adjusted level 1 liquid asset amount, (ii) the adjusted level 2A liquid asset amount, and (iii) the adjusted level 2B liquid asset amount minus the adjusted public sector entity security liquid asset amount; or (2) zero.
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act (Pub L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471, 12 U.S.C. 4809) requires the Board to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The Board invites your comments on how to make this proposal easier to understand. For example:
• Has the Board organized the material to suit your needs? If not, how could this material be better organized?
• Are the requirements in the proposed rule clearly stated?
• If not, how could the proposed rule be more clearly stated?
• Does the proposed rule contain 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 proposed rule easier to understand? If so, what changes to the format would make the proposed rule easier to understand?
• What else could the Board do to make the regulation easier to understand?
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
As discussed above, this proposed rule would amend the liquidity coverage ratio rule to include certain high-quality general obligation U.S. municipal securities as high-quality
Under regulations issued by the Small Business Administration, a “small entity” includes a depository institution, bank holding company, or savings and loan holding company with total assets of $550 million or less (a small banking organization). As of December 31, 2014, there were approximately 664 small state member banks, 3,832 small bank holding companies, and 275 small savings and loan holding companies.
This proposed rule does not apply to “small entities” and would apply only to Board-regulated institutions subject to the LCR, which include: (1) Bank holding companies, certain savings and loan holding companies, and state member banks that, in each case, have $250 billion or more in total consolidated assets or $10 billion or more in on-balance sheet foreign exposure; (2) state member banks with $10 billion or more in total consolidated assets that are consolidated subsidiaries of bank holding companies subject to the LCR; and (3) nonbank financial companies designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council for Board supervision to which the Board has applied the LCR by rule or order. This proposed rule also would apply to bank holding companies and certain savings and loan holding companies with $50 billion or more in total consolidated assets, which are subject to the modified minimum liquidity coverage ratio. Companies that are subject to this proposed rule therefore substantially exceed the $550 million asset threshold at which a banking entity is considered a “small entity” under SBA regulations.
As noted above, because this proposed rule is not likely to apply to any company with assets of $550 million or less, if adopted in final form, it is not expected to apply to any small entity for purposes of the RFA. The Board is aware of no other Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule. In light of the foregoing, the Board does not believe that this proposed rule, if adopted in final form, would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities supervised and therefore believes that there are no significant alternatives to this 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. A final regulatory flexibility analysis will be conducted after consideration of comments received during the public comment period.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) (PRA), the Board may not conduct or sponsor, and a 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 Board reviewed this proposed rule and determined that it would not introduce any new collection of information pursuant to the PRA.
Administrative practice and procedure; Banks, banking; Federal Reserve System; Holding companies; Liquidity; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the Supplementary Information section, the Board proposes to amend part 249 of chapter II of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
12 U.S.C. 248(a), 321-338a, 481-486, 1467a(g)(1), 1818, 1828, 1831p-1, 1831o-1, 1844(b), 5365, 5366, 5368.
(c) * * *
(2) A general obligation security issued by, or guaranteed as to the timely payment of principal and interest by, a public sector entity where the security is:
(i) Investment grade under 12 CFR part 1 as of the calculation date;
(ii) Issued or guaranteed by a public sector entity whose obligations have a proven record as a reliable source of liquidity in repurchase or sales markets during stressed market conditions, as demonstrated by:
(A) The market price of the security or equivalent securities of the issuer declining by no more than 20 percent during a 30 calendar-day period of significant stress; or
(B) The market haircut demanded by counterparties to secured lending and secured funding transactions that are collateralized by the security or equivalent securities of the issuer increasing by no more than 20 percentage points during a 30 calendar-day period of significant stress; and
(iii) Not an obligation of a financial sector entity and not an obligation of a consolidated subsidiary of a financial sector entity.
The additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(4) Public sector entity security liquid asset amount. The public sector entity security liquid asset amount equals 50 percent of the fair value of all general obligation securities issued by, or guaranteed as to the timely payment of principal and interest by, a public sector entity that are eligible HQLA.
(c) * * *
(3) The public sector entity security cap excess amount.
(f)
(1) The public sector entity security liquid asset amount minus the level 2 cap excess amount minus level 2B cap excess amount minus 0.0526 times the sum of:
(i) The level 1 liquid asset amount;
(ii) The level 2A liquid asset amount; and
(iii) The level 2B liquid asset amount minus the public sector entity security liquid asset amount; or
(2) 0.
(g) * * *
(4)
(h) * * *
(3) The adjusted public sector entity security cap excess amount.
(k)
(1) The adjusted public sector entity security liquid asset amount minus the adjusted level 2 cap excess amount minus the adjusted level 2B cap excess amount minus 0.0526 times the sum of:
(i) The adjusted level 1 liquid asset amount;
(ii) The adjusted level 2A liquid asset amount: and
(iii) The adjusted level 2B liquid asset amount minus the adjusted public sector entity security liquid asset amount; or
(2) 0.
(c)
(1) The fair value of a single issuance of securities that are included as eligible HQLA by the Board-regulated institution is no greater than 25 percent of the total amount of outstanding securities with the same CUSIP number at the calculation date; and
(2) The fair value of the aggregate amount of securities of a single public sector entity issuer that are included as eligible HQLA by the Board-regulated institution is no greater than two times the average daily trading volume during the previous four quarters of all general obligation securities issued by that public sector entity.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed special conditions.
This action proposes special conditions for the Pratt and Whitney Canada PW210A engine model. This engine will have a novel or unusual design feature—an additional one engine inoperative (OEI) rating that combines the 30-second and 2-minute OEI ratings into a single rating. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These 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.
Send your comments on or before June 8, 2015.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-1771 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For technical questions concerning this proposed rule, contact Tara Fitzgerald, ANE-111, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5213; telephone (781) 238-7130; facsimile (781) 238-7199. For legal questions concerning this proposed rule, contact Vincent Bennett, ANE-7, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5299; telephone (781) 238-7044; facsimile (781) 238-7055; email
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 received in the docket on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On February 14, 2013, Pratt and Whitney Canada applied for an amendment to Type Certificate No. E00083EN-E to include the new PW210A engine model. The PW210A, which is a derivative of the PW210S
These special conditions are necessary because the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for combining the requirements of the flat 30-second and 2-minute OEI rating.
Under the provisions of § 21.101, Pratt and Whitney Canada must show that the PW210A meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 33, as amended by Amendments 33-1 through 33-30. These regulations will be incorporated into Type Certificate No. E00083EN after type certification approval of the PW210A. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. E00083NE are as follows:
Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR part 33), effective February 1, 1965, Amendments 33-1 through 33-24 and two special conditions: 33-008-SC: For on ground engine operation in auxiliary power unit (APU) mode, and 33-009-SC: For 30-minutes all engines operating (AEO) hovering power engine rating.
For the PW210A the certification basis is:
1. Airworthiness Standards: 14 CFR part 33, effective February 1, 1965, Amendments 33-1 through 33-30, inclusive.
2. Environmental Standards: 14 CFR part 34, effective September 10, 1990, as amended by 34-1 through 34-4 and 40 CFR part 87, effective (ICAO Annex 16, Volume II—Aircraft Engine Emissions, as amended up to and including Amendment 6).
In addition, the certification basis includes other regulations, special conditions and exemptions that are not relevant to these proposed special conditions. Type Certificate No. E00083EN will be updated to include a complete description of the certification basis for this model engine.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
Accordingly, should type certificate E00083EN be amended to include another model that incorporates the “Flat 30-second and 2-minute OEI,” the special conditions as defined would apply to models whose certification basis is amendment 33-25 or later.
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 § 21.17(a)(2).
The PW210A will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: The design feature is a “Flat 30-second and 2-minute” one engine inoperative (OEI) rating. The Flat 30-second and 2-minute OEI rating represents a case where the power levels and associated operating limitations for the 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI ratings (defined in Part 33) are the same.
These proposed special conditions are necessary because current part 33 regulations do not contain airworthiness standards for extending the 2-minute OEI rating for 30-seconds. These special conditions extend the time dependent requirements applicable to the 30-second OEI or 2-minute OEI to the 2.5 minutes time duration of the “Flat 30-second and 2-minute OEI” Power.
The 2.5 minutes time duration for the rating may affect the engine's structural and operational characteristics that are time dependent, such as the values for transients, time duration for stabilization to steady state, and part growth due to deformation. To address these aspects, we propose special conditions based on revised requirements of §§ 33.27, 33.87(a)(7), and 33.88(b).
The 2.5 minutes time duration for the rating affects the test conducted for the endurance test. For the 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI the test schedule of § 33.87(f) is divided among the two ratings. We propose special conditions based on revised requirements of § 33.87(f) to ensure the test will be run for 2.5 minutes duration with no interruption.
The 2.5 minutes time duration for the rating necessitates extending the time duration requirement of § 33.28(k) applicable to the 30-second OEI rating from 30 seconds to 2.5 minutes. This proposed requirement is for automatic availability and control of the engine for the entire duration of the rating's usage.
The 2.5 minutes time duration for the rating necessitates extending the requirements of § 33.29(c) that are applicable to 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI ratings to the single Flat 30-second and 2-minute OEI Power rating. We propose special conditions to ensure that the instrumentation requirements normally reserved for 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI ratings are applied to the Flat 30-second and 2-minute OEI Power rating over its whole duration. The pilot does not have to be alerted at the end of 30 seconds use of the Flat 30-second and 2-minute OEI Power rating, only after the entire 2 minutes 30 seconds has expired.
Paragraph 2.(e)(3) of these special conditions states that the engine must provide means or provision of means to alert maintenance of use of the Flat 30-second and 2-minute OEI Power rating, `alert' means after the aircraft lands, so any required maintenance actions can be completed before next flight.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the PW210A. Should Pratt and Whitney Canada apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
Certification of the PW210A is currently scheduled for May 1, 2015. The substance of these special conditions has been subject to the notice and public-comment procedure in a prior instance. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the applicant's both installation of the system and certification of the airplane, we are shortening the public-comment period to 10 days.
This action affects only the Flat 30-second and 2-minute OEI design features on the PW210A engine model. It is not a rule of general applicability and applies only to Pratt and Whitney Canada, who requested FAA approval of this engine feature.
Air Transportation, Aircraft, Aviation, Aviation safety, Safety.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Pratt and Whitney Canada PW210A engine model.
“Rated Flat 30-second and 2-minute One Engine Inoperative (OEI) Power,” with respect to rotorcraft turbine engines, means (1) a single rating for which the shaft horsepower and associated operating limitations of the 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI ratings are equal, and (2) the shaft horsepower is that developed under static conditions at the altitude and temperature for the hot day, and within the operating limitations established under Part 33. The rating is for continuation of flight operation after the failure or shutdown of one engine in multiengine rotorcraft, for up to three periods of use no longer than 2.5 minutes each in any one flight, and followed by mandatory inspection and prescribed maintenance action.
(a) The airworthiness standards in Part 33 Amendment 30 for the 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI ratings are applicable to the Flat 30-second and 2-minute OEI Power rating. In addition the following special conditions apply;
(b) Section 33.7 Engine ratings and operating limitations. Flat 30-second and 2-minute OEI Power rating and operating limitations are established for power, torque, rotational speed, gas temperature, and time duration.
(c) Section 33.27 Turbine, compressor, fan, and turbosupercharger rotor overspeed. The requirements of § 33.27, except that following the test, the rotor may not exhibit conditions such as cracking or distortion which preclude continued safe operation.
(d) Section 33.28 Engine controls systems. Must incorporate a means, or a provision for a means, for automatic availability and automatic control of the Flat 30-second and 2-minute OEI Power within the declared operating limitations.
(e) Section 33.29 Instrument Connection. In lieu of the requirements of 33.29(c) the PW210A must incorporate a means or a provision for a means to:
(1) Alert the pilot when the engine is at the Flat 30-second and 2-minute OEI Power level, when the event begins, and when the time interval expires;
(2) Automatically record each usage and duration of power at the Flat 30-second and 2-minute OEI Power rating;
(3) Following each flight when the Flat 30-second and 2-minute OEI Power rating is used, alert maintenance personnel in a positive manner that the engine has been operated at the Flat 30-second and 2-minute OEI Power level, and permit retrieval of the recorded data; and
(4) Enable routine verification of the proper operation of the above means.
(f) Section 33.87 Endurance test. The requirements applicable to 30-second and 2-minute OEI ratings, except for:
(1) The test of § 33.87(a)(7) for the purposes of temperature stabilization, must be run with a test period time of 2.5 minutes.
(2) The tests in § 33.87(f)(2) and (3) must be run continuously for the duration of 2.5 minutes, and
(3) The tests in § 33.87(f)(6) and (7) must be run continuously for the duration of 2.5 minutes.
(g) Section 33.88 Engine overtemperature test. The requirements of § 33.88(b) except that the test time is 5 minutes instead of 4 minutes.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model 188 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that a certain circumferential fuselage splice is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed AD would require an inspection for corrosion and previous repairs, severed stringers, cracking, and loose or distressed fasteners of the forward and aft ends of the stringer splices of certain stringers, inspection for cracking and modification of certain fastener holes common to the stringer and splice member at the forward and aft ends of the splice, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to prevent loss of residual strength of a certain circumferential fuselage splice, which could lead to rapid decompression of the cabin and potential loss of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 13, 2015.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column P-58, 86 S. Cobb Drive, Marietta, GA 30063; phone: 770-494-5444; fax: 770-494-5445; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Carl Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-5554; fax: 404-474-5605; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Structural fatigue damage is progressive. It begins as minute cracks, and those cracks grow under the action of repeated stresses. This can happen because of normal operational conditions and design attributes, or because of isolated situations or incidents such as material defects, poor fabrication quality, or corrosion pits, dings, or scratches. Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally. Global fatigue damage is general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. Multiple-site damage is global damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Global damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site-damage and multiple-element-damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane, in a condition known as WFD. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.
The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.
The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through separate rulemaking actions.
In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.
This proposed AD was prompted by an evaluation by the DAH indicating that the circumferential fuselage splice at fuselage-station (FS) 695 is subject to WFD. The root cause of this WFD is fatigue cracks manifesting and growing simultaneously at similar structural details and stress levels at the circumferential fuselage splice. Fatigue cracking is increasingly likely as the airplane is operated and aged, and without intervention, fatigue cracking could lead to loss of residual strength of the circumferential fuselage splice at FS 695, which could lead to rapid decompression of the cabin area and potential loss of the airplane.
We reviewed Lockheed Martin Electra Service Bulletin 88/SB-722, dated April 30, 2014. This service bulletin describes procedures for doing the following actions:
• A general visual inspection (GVI) for corrosion and previous repairs, severed stringers, cracking, and loose or distressed fasteners of the forward and aft ends of the stringer splices of stringers 1-7 and 66-72, and corrective actions if necessary.
• At stringers 1-7 and 66-72, removing the four rivets common to the stringer and splice member at the forward and aft ends of the splice and doing a bolt hole eddy current (BHEC) inspection or an equivalent inspection procedure for cracking in each of the fastener holes, and corrective actions if necessary.
• Corrective actions for cracked holes include reaming to the maximum permissible hole diameter of the next larger size rivet. If a crack indication remains after reaming, this service information specifies repairing the cracked stringer.
• If a severed stringer is found during the GVI, doing related investigative actions of an eddy current surface scan inspection for cracking of the fuselage skin at the skin-to-stringer attachments immediately forward and aft of the stringer break and confirming skin cracks with a dye penetrant inspection. Corrective actions include repairing the severed stringer or skin cracks.
• For holes without crack indications, other specified actions include modifying the fastener holes by reaming to a certain maximum permissible hole diameter of the same size rivet and installing replacement fasteners; or if original hole is larger than the maximum permissible diameter, installing the next rivet size and type.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described
Although Lockheed Martin Electra Service Bulletin 88/SB-722, dated April 30, 2014, specifies that crack indications should be confirmed by an alternate inspection method, this proposed AD would not require that action.
Operators should note that, although the Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Martin Electra Service Bulletin 88/SB-722, dated April 30, 2014, describe procedures for submitting a report of damage, this proposed AD would not require that action.
Lockheed Martin Electra Service Bulletin 88/SB-722, dated April 30, 2014, does not describe corrective actions if any corrosion or previous repair is found, and if any loose or distressed fastener is found. This proposed AD would require repair.
The compliance time for the modification specified in this proposed AD for addressing WFD was established to ensure that discrepant structure is replaced before WFD develops in airplanes. Standard inspection techniques cannot be relied on to detect WFD before it becomes a hazard to flight. We will not grant any extensions of the compliance time to complete any AD-mandated service bulletin related to WFD without extensive new data that would substantiate and clearly warrant such an extension.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by July 13, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model 188A and 188C airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 1001 and subsequent.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the circumferential fuselage splice at fuselage-station (FS) 695 is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of residual strength of the circumferential fuselage splice at FS 695, which could lead to rapid decompression of the cabin and potential loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Before the accumulation of 38,200 total flight hours or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Do a general visual inspection for corrosion and previous repairs, severed stringers, cracking, and loose or distressed fasteners of the forward and aft ends of the stringer splices of stringers 1-7 and 66-72; remove the four rivets common to the stringer and splice member at the forward and aft ends of the splice and do a bolt hole eddy current inspection or an equivalent inspection procedure for cracking in each of the fastener holes; modify the fastener holes;
(1) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any corrosion or previous repair is found, before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
(2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any loose or distressed fastener is found, before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
Although Lockheed Martin Electra Service Bulletin 88/SB-722, dated April 30, 2014, specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
(1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, Carl Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta ACO, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-5554; fax: 404-474-5605; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column P-58, 86 S. Cobb Drive, Marietta, GA 30063; phone: 770-494-5444; fax: 770-494-5445; email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action would revise the FAA's requirements for an application to operate in Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) airspace. This proposal would eliminate the burden and expense of developing, processing, and approving RVSM maintenance programs. As a result of this proposed revision, an applicant to operate in RVSM airspace would no longer be required to develop and submit an RVSM maintenance program solely for the purpose of an RVSM authorization. Because of other, independent FAA airworthiness regulations, all aircraft operators would nevertheless continue to be required to maintain RVSM equipment in an airworthy condition.
Send comments on or before July 27, 2015.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-1746 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For technical questions concerning this action, contact Charles Fellows, Aviation Safety Inspector, Avionics Branch, Aircraft Maintenance Division, Flight Standards Services, AFS-360, Federal Aviation Administration, 950 L'Enfant Plaza North SW., Washington, DC 20024; telephone (202) 267-1706; email
For legal questions concerning this action, contact Benjamin Jacobs, Attorney-Advisor, Office of Chief Counsel, AGC-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-7240; email
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Sections 106(f), 40113, and 44701 authorize the FAA Administrator to prescribe regulations necessary for aviation safety. Section 40103 authorizes the Administrator to prescribe regulations to enhance the efficiency of the national airspace. This rulemaking is within the scope of these authorities because it would remove existing safety and airspace-related regulations that the FAA no longer finds necessary to protect aviation safety.
This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes to remove the requirement in Appendix G of part 91 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) that any operator seeking Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) authorization must
In light of these developments, the requirement that RVSM applicants submit specialized maintenance plans to the FAA is no longer necessary. Eliminating this requirement would reduce both operators' costs and FAA workload, while maintaining the existing high level of safety.
This proposed rulemaking is a retrospective regulatory review. Because the RVSM maintenance plan requirement is no longer necessary, this proposed rulemaking would eliminate the considerable burden and expense of developing, processing, and approving RVSM maintenance programs. The proposed rulemaking, therefore, promotes cost savings for both part 91 operators and the FAA. The total cost savings are estimated to be $76.1 million over a five-year period ($66.8 million present value).
As RVSM technology has become integral to the design of aircraft capable of flying in RVSM airspace, the current requirement that any aircraft operator seeking RVSM authorization must submit an RVSM maintenance plan to the FAA is no longer necessary. More specifically, now that RVSM technology is incorporated into aircraft type designs, the FAA's airworthiness and maintenance regulations require any operator of an aircraft incorporating that technology to maintain the RVSM equipment in a condition for safe operation. The FAA, with input from industry, has determined that eliminating the redundant maintenance plan component of RVSM authorization will improve efficiency and reduce costs for both the agency and operators.
Vertical separation standards establish the vertical distance that must separate aircraft routes in the national airspace system. In the early 1970's, rising air-traffic volume and fuel costs sparked an interest in reducing vertical separation standards for aircraft operating above flight level (FL) 290. Above 18,000 feet, flight levels are a measure of altitude assigned in 500-feet increments; FL290 represents an altitude of 29,000 feet. At the time, the FAA required aircraft operating above FL290 to maintain a minimum of 2000 ft. of vertical separation between routes. These high-altitude routes were desirable, because the diminished atmospheric drag at high altitudes results in a corresponding decrease in fuel consumption. Operators, therefore, sought and continue to seek not only the most direct routes, but also the most efficient altitudes for their aircraft. Higher demand for these high-altitude routes resulted in greater congestion.
In 1973, the Air Transport Association of American petitioned the FAA to reduce the vertical separation of high altitude routes to 1000 feet. The FAA denied the petition in 1977, in part, because of insufficient standards and technology, including aircraft altitude-keeping standards, maintenance and operational standards, and altitude correction technology. In mid-1981, however, the FAA initiated the Vertical Studies Program. This program, in conjunction with the RTCA (formerly the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics) Special Committee (SC)-150 and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Review of General Concept of Separation Panel (RGCSP), determined:
• RVSM was “technically feasible without imposing unreasonably demanding technical requirements on the equipment”;
• RVSM could provide “significant benefits in terms of economy and en-route airspace capacity”; and
• Implementation of RVSM would require “sound operational judgment supported by an assessment of system performance based on: aircraft altitude-keeping capability, operational considerations, system performance monitoring, and risk assessment.”
Following these determinations, the FAA began a two-phase implementation of RVSM operations for aircraft registered in the United States (U.S.). In 1997, in the first phase, the FAA published two amendments to part 91 of 14 CFR. The first amendment added appendix G (Operations in Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) Airspace), containing a set of operational, aircraft design, and other standards applicable to operators and those seeking to operate in RVSM airspace. Among other things, appendix G requires all applicants for RVSM authorization to submit to the FAA an approved RVSM maintenance plan. In addition, the FAA promulgated § 91.706 (Operations within airspace designed as Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum Airspace), which, among other things, allows operators of U.S.-registered aircraft to fly in RVSM airspace outside of the U.S., in accordance with the requirements of appendix G.
The second phase of RVSM implementation occurred in October 2003, with a second RVSM-related FAA rulemaking. The 2003 rule introduced RVSM airspace over the U.S. and, like the 1997 rulemaking, requires all U.S.-registered RVSM operators to comply with the application, operations, and aircraft design requirements of part 91, appendix G.
In 2008, the FAA reviewed its RVSM program and operator authorization policies. At the time, the FAA database contained more than 7,000 active RVSM authorizations, covering in excess of 15,000 U.S.-registered aircraft. The FAA's evaluation found the existing processes ensured compliance with the RVSM operating requirements.
At the same time, FAA representatives began meeting with the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) to develop ways to streamline the RVSM application process to lower operators' burden to obtain authorization and reduce the FAA's workload associated with processing and granting authorizations. The parties formed the RVSM Process Enhancement Team (PET), tasking it to focus on changes that could be accomplished
This proposed rulemaking would address another element identified by the PET: reducing the burden on part 91 operators to create and obtain approval of an RVSM-specific maintenance program. The PET could not address this issue because the workgroup's charter limited the PET to changes that could be made through guidance and without rulemaking action. However, both the FAA and the NBAA agreed that RVSM-related airworthiness standards, applicable to all part 91 operators, should be treated more like other, substantially similar aircraft maintenance requirements, while maintaining an equivalent level of safety.
Under current requirements, section 3 (Operator Authorization) of appendix G contains application requirements for an operator seeking RVSM authorization. As described above, this section requires any RVSM applicant to develop and submit for FAA approval an RVSM maintenance program. The program must outline service and maintenance procedures and include acceptable maintenance practices, a quality assurance program for test equipment, and procedures for return to service.
During the early implementation of RVSM, most aircraft required upgrades, modifications, or the application of service bulletins to meet the FAA's RVSM system safety standards. In 1997, requiring operators to create RVSM maintenance programs was essential to ensure that operators satisfied these standards and, by extension, the continued airworthiness of their aircraft. Today, however, nearly 17 years since first implementation, RVSM systems are the standard among aircraft capable of operating between FL290 and FL410. Additionally, most RVSM-capable aircraft are either newly built or have been modified, under a supplemental type certificate, to meet RVSM performance requirements by original design. All of these aircraft designs have Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA)—maintenance instructions to which aircraft operators must adhere—providing operators with detailed instructions for maintaining any RVSM equipment. And, most importantly, the continued airworthiness of RVSM-capable aircraft is also ensured by the FAA's airworthiness regulations, which require operators to maintain each aircraft in accordance with its type design and in a condition for safe operation.
The specific terms of the FAA's maintenance requirements vary according to the type of operator involved. Commercial operators are required to use a structured, organizational approach to maintenance that may include named oversight personnel, manuals, and an FAA-approved maintenance program. Both currently and under this proposal, these maintenance programs must account for the maintenance of RVSM equipment. On the other hand, non-commercial operators—such as those operating privately—are not required to create an organizational maintenance structure, but are instead required (both currently and if this proposal goes into effect) to have their aircraft inspected in accordance with part 91, and to have repairs executed in accordance with part 43. Ultimately, all operators' RVSM-related obligations under these airworthiness regulations are substantially identical to the independent maintenance requirements of section 3 of appendix G. The FAA has determined, therefore, that an independent requirement to develop and submit RVSM-specific maintenance programs for FAA approval is no longer necessary or justified.
In light of the foregoing, the FAA proposes to revise section 3 of appendix G by removing the requirement that an applicant submit an approved RVSM maintenance program, currently codified as § 3(b)(1)-(3). The FAA proposal would reserve § 3(b)(1) and leave in place the other application-related requirements and paragraphs. The FAA does not intend for this proposal to affect the other elements of an application for RVSM authorization.
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule.
DOT Order 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. Because this proposed rulemaking is a retrospective regulatory review, the expected outcome would be a cost savings with positive net benefits. The FAA has, therefore, determined that this proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The FAA requests comments with supporting justification about the FAA determination of the proposed rule providing a cost savings. The reasoning for this determination follows:
This proposed rulemaking would remove the requirement in Appendix G of part 91 that operators seeking RVSM authorization must develop and submit an RVSM maintenance plan for FAA approval. It would eliminate the considerable burden and expense to operators and FAA safety inspectors of developing, processing, and approving RVSM maintenance plans.
When the current requirement was established, RVSM systems were yet to be incorporated into aircraft type design. This is no longer the case. RVSM systems are now incorporated into aircraft type designs and supplemental type designs, and operators must properly maintain these systems as part of their airworthiness obligation. In light of these developments, the requirement in Appendix G of part 91 for RVSM applicants to submit specialized maintenance plans is redundant.
To quantify the relief to part 91 operators and FAA safety inspectors from the streamlining of regulations, the FAA has estimated three variables, which are: (1) The number of RVSM maintenance programs approved for calendar year (CY) 2014, (2) the costs
Applying these
In addition to the cost savings realized by operators, eliminating the requirement would free 33,852 hours for FAA safety inspectors to perform alternative tasks during year one of implementation. The hours are calculated by multiplying the average number of hours FAA safety inspectors expend reviewing and approving each RVSM maintenance program submitted (12 hours) by the number of RVSM maintenance program approvals estimated for CY 2014 (2,821 approvals). The annual cost savings of $1.1 million to the FAA equals the 33,852 hours multiplied by the FAA fully-burdened wage of $33.06.
Based on these calculations, the cost savings to operators during the first five years of the rule's implementation would be approximately $70.5 million ($61.9 million present value), and the FAA cost savings would total $5.6 million ($4.9 million present value). The results are presented below.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.” To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.”
The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If an agency anticipates such an impact, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. Section 603 of the RFA requires agencies to prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) describing the impact of proposed rule on small entities. This rule is relieving. The FAA is issuing this rule to eliminate duplicative requirements. The FAA estimates that this rule would reduce firm's costs by $5,000 to develop and submit an RVSM maintenance plan. Under Section 603(b), this initial analysis must account for the following issues, which are addressed below:
All part 91 operator RVSM-related obligations are required by FAA airworthiness regulations to maintain RVSM equipment in an airworthy condition. Thus, the requirement in section 3 of Appendix G, that operators seeking RVSM authorization to develop and submit an RVSM maintenance plan for FAA approval342 is redundant. The FAA estimates that the removal of this redundant requirement will save each affected small entity $5,000 per RVSM authorization.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in 49 U.S.C. Sections 106, 40113, and 44701 therein authorize the FAA Administrator to prescribe regulations necessary for aviation safety. Section 40103 authorizes the Administrator to prescribe regulations to enhance the efficiency of the national airspace. This rulemaking is within the scope of these authorities because it removes existing safety and airspace-related regulations that the FAA no longer finds necessary to protect aviation safety.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there would be no new requirement for information collection associated with this proposed rule.
The FAA is not aware of any Federal rules that would duplicate, overlap or conflict with this proposed change. This rule would reduce duplicative requirements saving firms about $5,000.
Under the RFA, the FAA must determine whether a proposed rule significantly affects a substantial number of small entities. This determination is typically based on small entity size and revenue thresholds that vary depending on the affected industry.
If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. This rule would eliminate an existing duplicative requirement. In doing so, this rule would, reduce a firm's costs by $5,000; hence the rule reduces costs. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because this rule is cost relieving.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that it would have the same impact on domestic and international entities and thus has a neutral trade impact.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $151.0 million in lieu of $100 million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires the FAA to consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined no PRA requirement for information collection associated with this proposed rule. Specifically, the cost of preparing and obtaining approval of a maintenance program was never evaluated as a paperwork burden in the original PRA Supporting Statement of RVSM (OMB Control no. 2120-0679).
(1) In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and has identified no differences with these proposed regulations.
(2) Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, promotes international regulatory
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312d (regulatory documents covering administrative or procedural requirements) and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have Federalism implications.
The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it would not be a “significant energy action” under the executive order and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this NPRM. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.
Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Commenters should not file proprietary or confidential business information in the docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the person identified in the
Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information, it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the Internet by—
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at
3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item (1) above.
Air traffic control, Aircraft, Aviation safety.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 40103, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534, articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Proposed priority.
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services proposes a priority under the Experimental and Innovative Training program. The Assistant Secretary may
We must receive your comments on or before June 29, 2015.
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
•
•
Don Bunuan. Telephone: (202) 245-6616 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice by accessing regulations.gov. You may also inspect the comments in person in room 5040, 550 12th Street SW., PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2800, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
This notice contains one proposed priority.
Training and Technical Assistance Center for Vocational Rehabilitation Agency Program Evaluation and Quality Assurance (PEQA).
Federal agencies are increasingly being called upon to implement accountability systems designed to assess and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the programs they administer. Legislation such as the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 have provided a performance management framework that holds Federal agencies accountable for achieving program results.
The recently enacted Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) made major changes to improve accountability for performance of the core programs of the Federal workforce system, including the State Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Services program. In particular, WIOA amendments to section 106 of the Rehabilitation Act eliminate the VR program's evaluation standards and indicators and make the program subject to the common performance accountability measures, established in section 116(b) of WIOA, that are applicable to all core programs of the workforce development system.
In addition to required evaluation activities under the Rehabilitation Act, section 116(e)(1) of WIOA requires States, in coordination with local boards and the State agencies responsible for the administration of the core programs, to conduct ongoing evaluations of activities carried out under such programs “in order to promote, establish, implement, and utilize methods for continuously improving core program activities in order to achieve high-level performance within, and high-level outcomes from, the workforce development system.”
To carry out the WIOA performance accountability and evaluation requirements, State VR agencies will need to build their capacity to develop and evaluate methods to achieve high-level performance and program outcomes, including the effective and efficient use of program resources. In particular, State VR agencies will need personnel with the knowledge and skills to improve agency performance management systems through rigorous program evaluation and the implementation of quality assurance systems.
In anticipation of the increased focus on improving performance management, in 2011, the 36th Institute on Rehabilitation Issues (IRI) study group recommended that (1) the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) work with the rehabilitation field to improve performance management systems and tools, and (2) State agencies embrace continuous improvement practices to properly inform public policy development and measurement of effectiveness (IRI, 2011). The 36th IRI described how bolstering program evaluation and quality assurance within State agencies could improve the quality of service delivery and better achieve successful employment for VR consumers. For example, trained evaluators could provide agencies with valuable data and analysis to use in
The demand for program evaluation and quality assurance skill development is also evidenced by the growing number of grassroots communities of practice. These communities of practice, which usually consist of VR agency staff, have identified that one of the greatest needs of State VR agencies is structured program evaluation training specifically tailored for existing staff.
For State VR agencies, a workforce with skills focused on performance evaluation and quality assurance is essential. There is a demonstrated interest and need in the field for additional, structured training opportunities for new and existing State VR agency staff, and RSA believes a training and technical assistance center would be ideally suited to meet this need.
Institute on Rehabilitation Issues (2011). Performance management: Program evaluation and quality assurance in vocational rehabilitation. Hot Springs, AR: University of Arkansas CURRENTS.
The purpose of this proposed priority is to fund a cooperative agreement for a training and technical assistance center that will assist State vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies to improve performance management by building their capacity to carry out high quality program evaluations and quality assurance practices that promote continuous program improvement.
The Training and Technical Assistance Center for Program Evaluation and Quality Assurance (PEQA) will assist State VR agencies in building this capacity through professional education and training of vocational rehabilitation evaluators. To this end, PEQA will:
(a) Provide educational opportunities for State VR staff from recognized experts in program evaluation and quality assurance;
(b) Develop interagency collaboration networks and work teams committed to the improvement of quality assurance systems and tools; and
(c) Deliver technical, professional, and continuing educational support to State VR program evaluators.
To meet the requirements of this priority, the PEQA must, at a minimum, conduct the following activities:
(a) Develop a one-year certificate program in VR program evaluation that will result in increasing the numbers and qualifications of program evaluators in State VR agencies. At a minimum, this certificate program must:
(1) Be designed to develop key competencies necessary for successful implementation of program evaluation and quality assurance activities, including, but not limited to:
(i) Knowledge of the State-Federal VR program;
(ii) Data collection methodologies;
(iii) Data analysis and interpretation;
(iv) Making evaluative judgments and recommendations;
(v) Effective communication of results (including presentations, drafting reports, and building partnerships); and
(vi) Ethical practice.
(2) Be responsive to the prior knowledge and skills of participants;
(3) Incorporate adult learning principles and opportunities for practice into training;
(4) Be delivered through multiple modalities and in an accessible format;
(5) Assess, at regular intervals, the progress of training participants toward attainment of the key competencies; and
(6) Require the completion of a capstone project in order to successfully complete the program. The capstone project must:
(i) Be completed within one year of the completion of formal coursework for the certificate program;
(ii) Be conducted on a topic responsive to the needs of the State VR agency and agreed to by the PEQA, the participant, and the State VR agency; and
(iii) Be completed as part of the normal work duties of the participant in the State VR agency.
(7) Be provided at no cost to participants, excluding travel and per diem costs, which may be provided by the sponsoring agency.
(b) Provide training through the certificate program to a cohort of eight to ten working professionals in each year of the project.
(c) Select participants for the certificate program based, in part, on the considered recommendation of their employing State VR agencies.
(a) Develop a series of special training opportunities for intermediate-level program evaluators. These training opportunities must, at a minimum:
(1) Be designed to develop higher-level knowledge, skills, and abilities of program participants;
(2) Be focused on a range of topics determined by the PEQA with input from State VR agencies and other relevant groups or organizations;
(3) Provide opportunities for hands-on application of the competencies discussed in the trainings;
(4) Be of sufficient duration and intensity to ensure that participants obtain the competencies discussed in the trainings; and
(5) Assess the progress of program participants in attaining the competencies discussed in the trainings.
For purposes of this priority, an “intermediate-level program evaluator” is a program evaluator working for a State VR agency with the knowledge, skills, and abilities typically expected of a professional who has been in such a position for at least five years.
(b) Conduct no fewer than four special training opportunities each year of the project.
(a) Establish a community of practice that will act as a vehicle for communication, exchange of information among program evaluation professionals, and a forum for sharing the results of capstone projects that are in progress or have been completed. This community of practice must be focused on challenges facing project evaluation professionals and the development of key competencies to address such challenges;
(b) Maintain a Web site that, at a minimum:
(1) Provides a central location for later reference and use of capstone projects, resources from special training opportunities, and other relevant materials; and
(2) Ensures peer-to-peer access between State VR project evaluation professionals.
(c) Communicate and coordinate, on an ongoing basis, with other relevant Department-funded projects and those supported by the Departments of Labor, Commerce, and Health and Human Services; and
(d) Maintain ongoing communication with the RSA project officer and other RSA staff as required.
To be funded under this priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements in this priority. RSA encourages innovative approaches to meet these requirements, which are:
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance of the Project,” how the proposed project will—
(1) Address State VR agencies' capacity to conduct high quality program evaluation and data analysis
(i) Demonstrate knowledge of emerging and best practices in program evaluation and quality assurance;
(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current State VR and other efforts designed to improve evaluation and performance management practices.
(2) Increase the number of program evaluators working in State VR agencies who have obtained a certificate in their field of work and the number and quality of program evaluation activities performed by State VR agencies.
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of Project Services,” how the proposed project will—
(1) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet this requirement, the applicant must provide—
(i) Measurable intended project outcomes;
(ii) A plan for how the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes; and
(iii) A plan for communicating and coordinating with relevant training programs and communities of practice, State VR agencies, and other RSA partners.
(2) Use a conceptual framework to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any empirical support for this framework.
(3) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based practices. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe:
(i) How the current research about adult learning principles and implementation science will inform the proposed training; and
(ii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and evidence-based practices in the development and delivery of its products and services.
(4) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—
(i) Its proposed curriculum for a certificate program for VR evaluation professionals;
(ii) Its proposed plan for recruiting and selecting trainees for the certification program;
(iii) Its proposed plan for collecting information on the impact of capstone projects;
(iv) Its proposed plan for identifying, selecting and addressing the special topical program evaluation and quality assurance related training needs of State VR agency staff;
(v) Its proposed plan for annual follow-up with participants in special training opportunities;
(5) Develop products and implement services to maximize the project's efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—
(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the intended project outcomes; and
(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the intended outcomes of this collaboration.
(c) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Evaluation Plan,” how the proposed project will—
(1) Measure and track the effectiveness of the training provided. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe its proposed approach to—
(i) Collecting data on the effectiveness of training activities;
(ii) Analyzing and reporting data on the effectiveness of training, including any proposed standards or targets for determining effectiveness;
(2) Collect and analyze data on specific and measurable goals, objectives, and intended outcomes of the project, including measuring and tracking the effectiveness of the training provided. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—
(i) Its proposed evaluation methodologies, including instruments, data collection methods, and analyses;
(ii) Its proposed standards or targets for determining effectiveness;
(iii) How it will use the evaluation results to examine the effectiveness of its implementation and its progress toward achieving the intended outcomes; and
(iv) How the methods of evaluation will produce quantitative and qualitative data that demonstrate whether the project and individual training activities achieved their intended outcomes.
(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of Project Resources,” how—
(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability, as appropriate;
(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities; and
(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits.
(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Management Plan,” how—
(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—
(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks.
(2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors will be allocated to the project and how these allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes, including an assurance that such personnel will have adequate availability to ensure timely communications with stakeholders and RSA;
(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and services provided are of high quality; and
(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including those of State and local personnel, technical assistance providers, researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and operation.
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the
We will announce the final priority in a notice in the
This notice does
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that would maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing this proposed priority only on a reasoned determination that their benefits would justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
The benefits of a grant under the Rehabilitation Training program have been established over the years through the successful completion of similar training projects funded for the purpose of improving the skills of State VR agency staff. The proposed priority would specifically improve the skills of State VR agency evaluators. A project of this type will be particularly beneficial to State VR agencies in this era of increased emphasis on accountability and program results.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing action on three Nebraska State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions. First, EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove portions of two SIP submissions from the state of Nebraska addressing the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1997 and 2006 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM
Comments must be received on or before June 29, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0269, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Mr. Gregory Crable, Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219;
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions:
In this proposed rulemaking, EPA is proposing to take action on three Nebraska SIP submissions. EPA received the first submission on April 3, 2008, addressing the infrastructure SIP requirements relating to the 1997 PM
The third submission was received by EPA on November 14, 2011, as a part of a larger submission dealing with various title 129 revisions, which we will address at a later date. This submission revises Chapter 4, Title 129 of the Nebraska Administrative Code. The change will repeal the annual NAAQS for PM
On October 2, 2007, EPA issued guidance to address infrastructure SIP elements required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new PM
The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),” and these SIP submissions are to provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission must address.
EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, “regional haze SIP” submissions required by EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive program provisions.
Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action. Although section
Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The state's attendant infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants, for example because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.
EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D have to meet the “applicable requirements” of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA, because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that particular NAAQS.
Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.
As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers.
As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and New Source Review (NSR) pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the 2012 PM
For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes,
With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (“SSM”); (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (“NSR Reform”). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission even if it is aware of such existing provisions.
EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the purposes of “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of a new or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
With respect to element[s] C and J, EPA interprets the CAA to require each state to make an infrastructure SIP submission for a new or revised NAAQS that demonstrates that the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program meeting the current requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants. The requirements of element D(i)(II) may also be satisfied by demonstrating the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program correctly addressing all regulated NSR pollutants. Nebraska has shown that it currently has a PSD program in place that covers all regulated NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs).
On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions.
At present, EPA has determined the Nebraska's SIP is sufficient to satisfy elements C, D(i)(II), and J with respect to GHGs because the PSD permitting program previously approved by EPA into the SIP continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT. Although Nebraska's approved PSD permitting program may currently contain provisions that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision, this does not render the infrastructure SIP submission inadequate to satisfy elements C, (D)(i)(II), and J. The SIP contains the necessary PSD requirements at this time, and the application of those requirements is not impeded by the presence of other previously-approved provisions regarding the permitting of sources of GHGs that EPA does not consider necessary at this time in light of the Supreme Court decision. Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision does not affect EPA's proposed approval of Nebraska's infrastructure SIP as to the requirements of elements C, D(i)(II), and J.
Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a “SIP call” whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.
On April 3, 2008, EPA Region 7 received Nebraska's infrastructure SIP submission for the 1997 PM
The state of Nebraska's statutes and Air Quality Regulations authorize the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) to regulate air quality and implement air quality control regulations. Section 81-1504 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes authorizes NDEQ to act, among other things, as the state air pollution control agency for all purposes of the CAA and to develop comprehensive programs for the prevention, control and abatement of new or existing pollution to the air of the state. Air pollution is defined in section 81-1502 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes as the presence in the outdoor atmosphere of one or more air contaminants or combinations thereof in such quantities and of such duration as are or may tend to be injurious to human, plant, or animal life, property, or the conduct of business.
Section 81-1505(1) of the Nebraska Revised Statutes authorizes the Nebraska Environmental Quality Council (EQC) to adopt and promulgate rules which set air standards that will protect public health and welfare. The EQC is also authorized to classify air contaminant sources according to levels and types of discharges, emissions or other characteristics.
The 1997 PM
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 1997 and 2006 PM
To address this element, section 81-1505(12)(o) of the Nebraska Revised Statutes provides the enabling authority necessary for Nebraska to fulfill the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B). This provision gives the EQC the authority to promulgate rules and regulations concerning the monitoring of emissions. The Air Quality Division within NDEQ implements these requirements. Along with their other duties, the monitoring program within NDEQ's Air Compliance and Enforcement Program collects air monitoring data, quality assures the results, and reports the data. In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 58 appendix D, section 4.7.1(b), Nebraska operates seven PM
NDEQ submits annual monitoring network plans to EPA for approval, including plans for its PM
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 1997 and 2006 PM
(1)
(2)
EPA has determined that Nebraska's minor new source review (NSR) program adopted pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act regulates emissions of NAAQS pollutants. EPA has also determined that certain provisions of the state's minor NSR program adopted pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act likely do not meet all the requirements found in EPA's regulations implementing that provision.
In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Nebraska's infrastructure SIP for the 1997 and 2006 PM
(3)
Nebraska's implementing rule, title 129, chapter 19, Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, incorporates the relevant portions of the Federal rule, 40 CFR 52.21 by reference. In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any state rules with regard to NSR reform requirements. EPA will act on NSR reform submittals through a separate rulemaking process. For Nebraska, we have previously approved Nebraska's NSR reform rules for attainment areas,
The Nebraska SIP also contains a permitting program for major sources and modifications in nonattainment areas (see Title 129, chapter 17, section
With respect to the PSD program, title 129, chapter 19, of the NAC provides for the permitting of construction of a new major stationary source or a major modification of an existing major stationary source. Further, chapter 19, section
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 1997 and 2006 PM
With respect to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2, EPA acted on this issue as it relates to Nebraska on August 8, 2011.
With respect to the PSD requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3, EPA notes that Nebraska's satisfaction of the applicable infrastructure SIP PSD requirements for attainment/unclassifiable areas of the 1997 and 2006 PM
EPA is proposing to disapprove Nebraska's SIP as it relates to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility, or “Prong 4” of the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D). In its SIP submittal, Nebraska refers to its submittal of a SIP revision in July, 2011, addressing the regional haze requirements. An approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the regional haze requirements in 40 CFR 51.308 would satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for visibility protection as such a SIP would ensure that emissions from the state will not interfere with measures required to be included in other state SIPs to protect visibility. EPA has not, however, fully approved Nebraska's Regional Haze SIP.
On July 6, 2012, after reviewing Nebraska's submittal of a Regional Haze SIP, EPA published the “Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Nebraska; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal Implementation Plan for Best Available Retrofit Technology Determination; Final Rule” (77 FR 40150). In that action, EPA partially approved the SIP revision as meeting the applicable regional haze requirements set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the Act and in the Federal regulations codified at 40 CFR 51.308, and the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart F and appendices V and Y. EPA disapproved the SO
In the absence of a fully approved Regional Haze SIP, a State may meet the requirements of prong 4 by showing that its SIP contains adequate provisions to prevent emission from within the State from interfering with other state's measures to protect visibility. See,
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) also requires that the SIP insure compliance with the applicable requirements of sections 126 and 115 of the CAA, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement, respectively.
Section 126(a) of the CAA requires new or modified sources to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from sources within the state. Although Nebraska sources have not been identified by EPA as having any interstate or international impacts under section 126 or section 115 in any pending actions relating to the 1997 or 2006 PM
Section 115 of the CAA authorizes EPA to require a state to revise its SIP under certain conditions to alleviate international transport into another country. There are no final findings under section 115 of the CAA against Nebraska with respect to any air pollutant. Thus, the state's SIP does not need to include any provisions to meet the requirements of section 115.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 1997 and 2006 PM
(1) Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires states to establish that they have adequate personnel, funding and authority. With respect to adequate authority, we have previously discussed Nebraska's statutory and regulatory authority to implement the 1997 and 2006 PM
With respect to adequate resources, NDEQ asserts that it has adequate personnel to implement the SIP. State statutes provide NDEQ the authority to establish bureaus, divisions and/or sections to carry out the duties and powers granted by the Nebraska state law to address the control of air pollution, to be administered by full-time salaried, bureau, division or section chiefs. See Nebraska Revised Statutes section 81-1504(14). NDEQ's Air Quality Division is currently divided into the Permitting Section, the Compliance Section, and the Program Planning and Development Unit.
With respect to funding, the Nebraska statutes require the EQC to establish various fees for sources, in order to fund the reasonable costs of implementing various air pollution control programs. For example, section 81-1505(12)(e) of the Nebraska Revised Statutes requires the EQC to establish a requirement for sources to pay fees sufficient to pay the reasonable direct and indirect costs of developing and administering the air quality operating permit program. These costs include overhead charges for personnel, equipment, buildings and vehicles; enforcement costs; costs of emissions and ambient monitoring; and modeling analyses and demonstrations. See Nebraska Revised Statutes section 81-1505.04(2)(b). Similarly, section 81-1505(12)(a) requires the EQC to establish application fees for air contaminant sources seeking to obtain a permit prior to construction.
Section 81-1505.05 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes provides that all fees collected pursuant to section 81-1505.04 be credited to the “Clean Air Title V Cash Fund” to be used solely to pay for the direct and indirect costs required to develop and administer the air quality permit program. Similarly, section 81-1505.06 provides that all fees collected pursuant to section 81-1505(12) be deposited in the “Air Quality Permit Cash Fund.”
Nebraska uses funds in the non-Title V subaccounts, along with General Revenue funds and EPA grants under, for example, sections 103 and 105 of the Act, to fund the programs. EPA conducts periodic program reviews to ensure that the state has adequate resources and funding to, among others, implement the SIP.
(2) Conflict of interest provisions—Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that each state SIP meet the requirements of section 128, relating to representation on state boards and conflicts of interest by members of such boards. Section 128(a)(1) requires that any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA must have at least a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive any “significant portion” of their income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders under the CAA. Section 128(a)(2) requires that members of such a board or body, or the head of an agency with similar powers, adequately disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
On October 21, 2014, EPA approved Nebraska's SIP revision addressing section 128 requirements. For a detailed analysis concerning Nebraska's section 128 provisions, see EPA's approval of Nebraska's 2008 Lead infrastructure SIP (79 FR 62832).
(3) With respect to assurances that the state has responsibility to implement the SIP adequately when it authorizes local or other agencies to carry out portions of the plan, section 81-1504(18) of the Nebraska Revised Statutes grants NDEQ the authority to encourage local units of government to handle air pollution problems within their own jurisdictions. NDEQ may delegate, by contract with governmental subdivisions which have adopted air pollution control programs, the enforcement of state-adopted air pollution control regulations within a specified region surrounding the jurisdictional area of the governmental subdivision.
The State of Nebraska relies on two local agencies for assistance in implementing portions of the air pollution control program: Lincoln/Lancaster County Health Department and Omaha Air Quality Control. NDEQ oversees the activities of these local agencies to ensure adequate implementation of the plan. NDEQ utilizes sub-grants to the local agencies to provide adequate funding, and as an oversight mechanism. EPA conducts reviews of the local program activities in conjunction with its oversight of the state program.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 1997 and 2006 PM
The Nebraska regulations also require that all Class I and Class II operating permits include requirements for monitoring of emissions.
The Nebraska regulations also impose reporting requirements on sources subject to permitting requirements.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 1997 and 2006 PM
Section 81-1507(4) of the Nebraska Revised Statutes states that whenever the Director of NDEQ finds that an emergency exists requiring immediate action to protect the public health and welfare, he or she may issue an order requiring that such action be taken as the Director deems necessary to meet the emergency. Title 129, chapter 38, section
Based on EPA's experience to date with the PM
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 1997 and 2006 PM
As discussed previously, section 81-1504 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes authorizes NDEQ to regulate air quality and implement air quality control regulations. It also authorizes NDEQ to act as the state air pollution control agency for all purposes of the CAA. Section 81-1505(1) gives the EQC the authority to adopt and promulgate rules which set air standards that will protect public health and welfare. This authority includes the authority to revise rules as necessary to respond to a revised NAAQS.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 1997 and 2006 PM
As noted earlier, EPA does not expect infrastructure SIP submissions to address subsection (I). The specific SIP submissions for designated nonattainment areas, as required under CAA title I, part D, are subject to different submission schedules than those for section 110 infrastructure elements. Instead, EPA will take action on part D attainment plan SIP submissions through a separate rulemaking governed by the requirements for nonattainment areas, as described in part D.
(1) With respect to interagency consultation, the SIP should provide a process for consultation with general-purpose local governments, designated organizations of elected officials of local governments, and any Federal Land Manager having authority over Federal land to which the SIP applies. Section 81-1504(3) authorizes NDEQ to advise and consult and cooperate with other Nebraska state agencies, the Federal government, other states, interstate agencies, and with affected political subdivisions, for the purpose of implementing its air pollution control responsibilities. Nebraska also has appropriate interagency consultation provisions in its preconstruction permit program.
(2) With respect to the requirements for public notification in CAA section 127, title 129 chapter 38 of the NAC, discussed previously in connection with the state's authority to address emergency episodes, contains provisions for public notification of elevated ozone and other air pollutant levels. Appendix I to title 129 of the NAC includes measures which can be taken by the public to reduce concentrations. In addition, information regarding air pollution and related issues, is provided on an NDEQ Web site,
(3) With respect to the applicable requirements of part C, relating to prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility protection, we previously noted in the discussion of section 110(a)(2)(C) (relating to enforcement of control measures) how the Nebraska SIP meets the PSD requirements, incorporating the Federal rule by reference. Regarding the prevention of significant deterioration requirements, EPA previously approved Nebraska's PM
With respect to the visibility component of section 110(a)(2)(J), Nebraska stated in its 1997 and 2006 PM
EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA. However, when EPA establishes or revises a NAAQS, these visibility and regional haze requirements under part C do not change. EPA believes that there are no new visibility protection requirements under part C as a result of a revised NAAQS. Therefore, there are no newly applicable visibility protection obligations pursuant to element J after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. As such, EPA is proposing to find that Nebraska's SIP meets the visibility requirements of element J with respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 1997 and 2006 PM
Nebraska has authority to conduct air quality modeling and report the results of such modeling to EPA. Section 81-1504(5) provides NDEQ with the authority to encourage, participate in, or conduct studies, investigations, research and demonstrations relating to air pollution and its causes and effects. As an example of regulatory authority to perform modeling for purposes of determining NAAQS compliance, the regulations at title 129, chapter 19, section
The Nebraska regulations also give NDEQ the authority to require that modeling data be submitted for analysis. Title 129, chapter 19, section
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 1997 and 2006 PM
Section 81-1505 of the Nebraska Revised States provides authority for NDEQ to collect permit fees, including title V fees. For example, section 81-1505(12)(e) requires that the EQC establish fees sufficient to pay the reasonable direct and indirect of developing and administering the air quality permit program. Nebraska's title V program, including the fee program addressing the requirements of the Act and 40 CFR 70.9 relating to title V fees, was approved by EPA on October 18, 1995 (60 FR 53872).
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 1997 and 2006 PM
Section 81-1504(5) of the Nebraska Revised Statutes gives NDEQ the authority to encourage local governments to handle air pollution problems within their respective jurisdictions and at the same time provide them with technical and consultative assistance. NDEQ is also authorized to delegate the enforcement of air pollution control regulations down to governmental subdivisions which have adopted air pollution control programs. As discussed previously, NDEQ currently relies on two local agencies for assistance in implementing portions of the air pollution control program: Lincoln/Lancaster County Health Department and Omaha Air Quality Control.
In addition, as previously noted in the discussion about section 110(a)(2)(J), Nebraska's statutes and regulations require that NDEQ consult with local political subdivisions for the purposes of carrying out its air pollution control responsibilities.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 1997 and 2006 PM
On November 14, 2011, Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality submitted a request for the approval of revisions to chapter 4 of title 129. The revision to chapter 4, section
EPA is proposing to approve the April 3, 2008, and August 29, 2011, infrastructure SIP submissions from Nebraska which address the requirements of CAA sections 110 (a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 1997 and 2006 PM
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submissions and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in those submissions or referenced in Nebraska's SIP, EPA believes that Nebraska has the infrastructure to address all applicable required elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) (except otherwise noted) to ensure that the 1997 and 2006 PM
In addition, EPA is proposing to approve an additional SIP submission from Nebraska which repeals the annual PM
We are hereby soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.
In this action, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the EPA approved Nebraska regulations for Ambient Air Quality Standards, and the EPA approved Nebraska nonregulatory provisions described in the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The statutory authority for this action is provided by section 110 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(e) * * *
Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, HUD.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would amend the HUDAR to implement miscellaneous changes necessary to update the HUDAR. These changes include a correction to the designation of Source Selection Authorities, limited delegation of Head of Contracting Activity authorities, incorporation of the HUDAR Matrix, addition of new clauses, certain administrative corrections, and incorporation of Alternates to various clauses to allow for electronic invoicing.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposed rule to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments. All submissions must refer to the above docket number and title.
1.
2.
To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the rule.
Lisa D. Maguire, Assistant Chief Procurement Officer for Policy, Systems and Risk Management, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-708-0294 (this is not a toll-free number) and fax number 202-708-8912. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access Ms. Maguire's telephone number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
The uniform regulation for the procurement of supplies and services by federal departments and agencies, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), was promulgated on September 19, 1983 (48 FR 42102). The FAR is codified in title 48, chapter 1, of the Code of Federal Regulations. HUD promulgated its regulation to implement the FAR on March 1, 1984 (49 FR 7696).
The HUDAR (title 48, chapter 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations) is prescribed under section 7(d) of the Department of HUD Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(d)); section 205(c) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 121(c)); and the general authorization in FAR 1.301. The HUDAR was last revised by final rule published on December 10, 2012 (77 FR 73524), and a subsequent correcting amendment published on August 15, 2013 (78 FR 49697).
This proposed rule would amend the HUDAR at 48 CFR chapter 24, as follows:
The rule proposes several administrative corrections, including: Revising section 2404.7001 to refer to the correct contract clause 2452.204-70, “Preservation of, and Access to, Contract Records (Tangible and Electronically Stored Information (ESI) Formats),” and removing the title and redesignating the clause that is codified at section 2432.705-70 as 2432.705-70(a).
In part 2406, the rule would add section 2406.303 which requires the use of HUD Form 24012
In part 2408, this rule would add subpart 2408.4, “Federal Supply Schedules,” and, in that subpart, would add section 2408.405-6(c)(2), which requires the use of HUD form 24013 for justifications for limiting sources exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold when using the Federal Supply Schedules.
In part 2409, this rule would add subpart 2409.1, entitled “Responsible Prospective Contractors,” and, within that subpart, section 2409.105, “Procedures,” which includes information to be collected in determining financial responsibility.
This rule would also:
Revise section 2415.303(a) to HUDAR section 2415.303(a)(1) and, except for those acquisitions identified in HUDAR section 2415.303(a)(2), designate HUD Assistant Secretaries, or their equivalent, as the Source Selection Authorities for selections made using the tradeoff process and to allow Assistant Secretaries to delegate this function to other departmental officials;
Add section 2415.303(a)(2) to designate HUD's General Counsel as the Source Selection Authority, regardless of contract amount, in all Headquarters procurements for legal services, unless the General Counsel specifically designates another agency official to perform that function;
Clarify section 2415.305(a)(5) to apply to Best Value Tradeoff technical evaluations;
Add part 2444 and, within that part, section 2444.204 entitled “Subcontracting Policies and Procedures”; and
Codify a class deviation approved by HUD's Chief Procurement Officer dated April 10, 2013 to add Alternate 1 to clauses 2452.232-70 and 2452.232-71.
In part 2452, the proposed rule would:
Add clause 2452.232-74, entitled “Not to Exceed Limitation,” and, in part 2432, add a reference to that clause and requirements regarding its use at section 2432.705;
Revise clause 2452.237-77(c)(1)(A) to change “21 days per month” to “number of business days in the month”;
Add clause 2452.237-79, “Post-Award Conference,” and a reference to that clause and requirements regarding its use at section 2437.110(e)(5);
Add clause 2452.237-81, “Labor Categories, Unit Prices Per Hour and Payment,” and a reference to that clause and requirements regarding its use at section 2437.110(e)(6);
Add section 2452.244-70, “Consent to Subcontract,” and a reference to that clause and requirements regarding its use at section 2444.204; and
Incorporate a new HUDAR matrix under subpart 2452.3.
The information collection requirements contained in this proposed rule are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB control number 2535-0091. The information collection requirements for the HUDAR are currently approved by OMB under control number 2535-0091. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531- 1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule does not impose any federal mandate on any state, local, or tribal government or the private sector within the meaning of UMRA.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
Notwithstanding HUD's determination that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, HUD specifically invites comments regarding less burdensome alternatives to this rule that will meet HUD's objectives as described in this preamble.
This proposed rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this proposed rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This proposed rule would not have federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive Order.
Government procurement.
Government procurement.
Government procurement.
Government Procurement
Government Procurement.
Government procurement.
Government procurement.
Government procurement.
Government procurement.
Government procurement.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, and pursuant to the authority under 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), HUD proposes to amend 48 CFR chapter 24 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 2452.204-70, “Preservation of, and Access to, Contract Records (Tangible and Electronically Stored Information (ESI) Formats),” in all solicitations and contracts exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold. The contracting officer shall use the basic clause with its Alternate I in cost-reimbursement type contracts. The contracting officer shall use the basic clause with its Alternate II in labor-hour and time-and-materials contracts.
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 3301
Justifications for Other Than Full and Open Competition must be prepared and approved using the latest version of HUD Form 24012.
(a)(3) HUD's Chief Procurement Officer, as the Head of Contracting Activity, has delegated the authority to the Deputy Chief Procurement Officer to approve, in writing, justifications for other than full and open competition procurements for proposed contracts over $12.5 million, but not exceeding $62.5 million.
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
(d) Supplies offered on the schedule are listed at fixed prices. Services offered on the schedule are priced either at hourly rates, or at fixed price for performance of a specific task (
(c)(2) Justifications for Limiting Sources, under the Federal Supply Schedules when exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, must be prepared and approved using the latest version of HUD Form 24013.
(d)(3) HUD's Chief Procurement Officer, as the Head of Contracting Activity, has delegated the authority to the Deputy Chief Procurement Officer to approve, in writing, justifications for Limited Source considerations for a proposed Federal Supply Schedule order or Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) with an estimated value
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
(a) The contracting officer shall perform a financial review when the contracting officer does not otherwise have sufficient information to make a positive determination of financial responsibility. In addition, the contracting officer shall consider performing a financial review—
(1) Prior to award of a contract, when—
(A) The contractor is on a list requiring pre-award clearance or other special clearance before award;
(B) The contractor is listed on the Consolidated List of Contractors Indebted to the Government, or is otherwise known to be indebted to the Government;
(C) The contractor may receive Government assets such as contract financing payments or Government property;
(D) The contractor is experiencing performance difficulties on other work; or
(E) The contractor is a new company or a new supplier of the item.
(2) At periodic intervals after award of a contract, when—
(A) Any of the conditions in paragraphs (1)(B) through (1)(E) of this subsection are applicable; or
(B) There is any other reason to question the contractor's ability to finance performance and completion of the contract.
(b) The contracting officer shall obtain the type and depth of financial and other information that is required to establish a contractor's financial capability or disclose a contractor's financial condition. While the contracting officer should not request information that is not necessary for protection of the Government's interests, the contracting officer must insist upon obtaining the information that is necessary. The unwillingness or inability of a contractor to present reasonably requested information in a timely manner, especially information that a prudent business person would be expected to have and to use in the professional management of a business, may be a material fact in the determination of the contractor's responsibility and prospects for contract completion.
(c) The contracting officer shall obtain the following information to the extent required to protect the Government's interest. In addition, if the contracting officer concludes that information not listed herein is required to determine financial responsibility, that information should be requested. The information must be for the person(s) who are legally liable for contract performance. If the contractor is not a corporation, the contracting officer shall obtain the required information for each individual/joint venturer/partner:
(1) Balance sheet and income statement—
(A) For the current fiscal year (interim);
(B) For the most recent fiscal year and, preferably, for the 2 preceding fiscal years. These should be certified by an independent public accountant or by an appropriate officer of the firm; and
(C) Forecasted for each fiscal year for the remainder of the period of contract performance.
(2) Summary history of the contractor and its principal managers, disclosing any previous insolvencies—corporate or personal, and describing its products or services.
(3) Statement of all affiliations disclosing—
(A) Material financial interests of the contractor;
(B) Material financial interests in the contractor;
(C) Material affiliations of owners, officers, members, directors, major stockholders; and
(D) The major stockholders if the contractor is not a widely-traded, publicly-held corporation.
(4) Statement of all forms of compensation to each officer, manager, partner, joint venturer, or proprietor, as appropriate—
(A) Planned for the current year;
(B) Paid during the past 2 years; and
(C) Deferred to future periods.
(5) Business base and forecast that—
(A) Shows, by significant markets, existing contracts and outstanding offers, including those under negotiation; and
(B) Is reconcilable to indirect cost rate projections.
(6) Cash forecast for the duration of the contract.
(7) Financing arrangement information that discloses—
(A) Availability of cash to finance contract performance;
(B) Contractor's exposure to financial crisis from creditor's demands;
(C) Degree to which credit security provisions could conflict with Government title terms under contract financing;
(D) Clearly stated confirmations of credit with no unacceptable qualifications; and
(E) Unambiguous written agreement by a creditor if credit arrangements include deferred trade payments or creditor subordinations/repayment suspensions.
(8) Statement of all state, local, and Federal tax accounts, including special mandatory contributions,
(9) Description and explanation of the financial effect of issues such as—
(A) Leases, deferred purchase arrangements, or patent or royalty arrangements;
(B) Insurance, when relevant to the contract;
(C) Contemplated capital expenditures, changes in equity, or contractor debt load;
(D) Pending claims either by or against the contractor;
(E) Contingent liabilities such as guarantees, litigation, environmental, or product liabilities;
(E) Validity of accounts receivable and actual value of inventory, as assets; and
(F) Status and aging of accounts payable.
(10) Significant ratios such as—
(A) Inventory to annual sales;
(B) Inventory to current assets;
(C) Liquid assets to current assets;
(D) Liquid assets to current liabilities;
(E) Current assets to current liabilities; and
(F) Net worth to net debt.
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 3301-3306 and 3105; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
(a)(1) The Contracting Officer shall insert a provision substantially the same as the provision at 2452.215-70, Proposal Content, in all solicitations for negotiated procurements expected to exceed the simplified acquisition limit. The provision may be used in simplified acquisitions when it is necessary to obtain business proposal information in making the award selection. If the proposed contract requires work on, or access to, HUD systems or applications (see the clause at 2452.239-70), the provision shall be used with its Alternate I. When the contracting officer has determined that it is necessary to limit the size of the technical and management portion of offers submitted by offerors, the provision shall be used with its Alternate II.
(a)(1) Except as identified in HUDAR Section 2415.303(a)(2), HUD's Chief Procurement Officer, as the Senior Procurement Executive, designates Assistant Secretaries, or their equivalent, for requiring activities as the Source Selection Authorities for selections made using the tradeoff process. Assistant Secretaries may delegate this function to other departmental officials. This designation also applies to acquisitions not performed under the requirements of FAR Part 15, but utilizing tradeoff analysis.
(a)(2) HUD's Chief Procurement Officer, as the Senior Procurement Executive, designates HUD's Office of General Counsel (OGC) as the Source Selection Authority, regardless of contract amount, in all Headquarters procurements for legal services, unless (s)he specifically designates another agency official to perform that function. Any Headquarters office desiring to procure outside legal services for the Department shall obtain OGC approval before advertising or soliciting proposals for such services. OGC shall determine whether the services are necessary and the extent of OGC involvement in the procurement.
(a) * * *
(3)
31 U.S.C. 3901-3905; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
(a) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 2452.232-72, “Limitation of Government's Obligation,” in solicitations and resultant incrementally funded fixed-price contracts as authorized by 2432.703-1. The contracting officer shall insert the information required in the table in paragraph (b) and the notification period in paragraph (c) of the clause.
(b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 2452.232-74, “Not To Exceed Limitation” in all solicitations and contracts where the total estimated funds needed for the performance period are not yet obligated.
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
(e)(1) * * *
(2) The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 2452.237-73, “Conduct of Work and Technical Guidance,” in all solicitations and contracts for services.
(3) * * *
(4) * * *
(5) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 2452.237-79, “Post Award Conference,” in all solicitations and contracts for services when the CO deems that a Post Award Conference is necessary.
(6) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 2452.237-81, “Labor Categories, Unit Prices Per Hour and Payment,” in all indefinite quantity and requirements solicitations and contracts when level of effort task orders will be issued.
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
(a) Insert HUDAR clause 2452.244-70 Consent to Subcontract, in contracts and task orders with an estimated value exceeding $10,000,000.
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
As prescribed in 2415.209(a), insert a provision substantially the same as the following:
PROPOSAL CONTENT ([
(a) Proposals shall be submitted in two parts as described in paragraphs (c) and (d) below. Each of the parts must be complete in itself so that evaluation of each part may be conducted independently, and so the identified parts of each proposal may be evaluated strictly on its own merit. Proposals shall be submitted in the format, if any, prescribed elsewhere in this solicitation. Proposals shall be enclosed in sealed packaging and addressed to the office specified in the solicitation. The offeror's name and address, the solicitation number and the date and time specified in the solicitation for proposal submission must appear in writing on the outside of the package.
(b) The number of proposals required are an original and [
(c)
(1) The offeror shall submit the information required in Instructions to Offerors designated under Part I—Technical Proposal.
(d)
(1) The offeror shall complete the Representations and Certifications provided in Section K of this solicitation and include them in Part II, Business Proposal.
(2) The offeror shall provide information to support the offeror's proposed costs or prices as prescribed elsewhere in Instructions to Offerors for Part II—Business Proposal.
(3) The offeror shall submit any other information required in Instructions to Offerors designated under Part II—Business Proposal.
As prescribed in 2415.209(a), if the proposed contract requires work on, or access to, sensitive automated systems as described in 2452.239-70, add the following subparagraph, numbered sequentially, to paragraph (d):
The offeror shall describe in detail how the offeror will maintain the security of automated systems as required by clause 2452.239-70 in Section I of this solicitation and include it in Part II, Business Proposal.
As prescribed in 2415.209(a), add the following paragraph (e) when the size of any proposal Part I or Part II will be limited:
(e) Size limits of Parts I and II.
(1) Offerors shall limit submissions of Parts I and II of their initial proposals to the page limitations identified in the Instructions to Offerors. Offerors are cautioned that if any Part of their proposal exceeds the stipulated limits for that Part, the Government will evaluate only the information contained in the pages up through the permitted number. Pages beyond that limit will not be evaluated.
(2) A page shall consist of one side of a single sheet of 8
(3) Any exemptions from this limitation are stipulated under the Instructions to Offerors.
(4) Offerors are encouraged to use recycled paper and to use both sides of the paper (see the FAR clause at 52.204-4).
As prescribed in 2432.908(c)(2), insert the following clause in all fixed-price solicitations and contracts:
PAYMENT SCHEDULE AND INVOICE SUBMISSION (FIXED-PRICE) ([
(a)
[
[
(b)
(1) The Contractor shall submit invoices as follows: Original to the payment office and one copy each to the Contracting Officer and a copy to the Government Technical Representative (GTR) identified in the contract. To constitute a proper invoice, the invoice must include all items required by the FAR clause at 52.232-25, “Prompt Payment.”
(2) To assist the government in making timely payments, the contractor is also requested to include on each invoice the appropriation number shown on the contract award document (
(c)
(d)
The contractor shall submit invoices electronically via email to the email addresses shown on the contract award document (
As prescribed in 2432.908(c)(3), insert the following clause in all cost-reimbursement, time-and-materials, and labor-hour solicitations and contracts:
VOUCHER SUBMISSION (COST-REIMBURSEMENT, TIME-AND-MATERIALS, AND LABOR HOUR) ([
(a)
(1) The contractor shall submit, _____ [
(2) To assist the government in making timely payments, the contractor is requested to include on each voucher the applicable appropriation number(s) shown on the award or subsequent modification document (
(b)
(1) The Contractor shall provide the payment office with all information required by other payment clauses contained in this contract.
(2) For cost reimbursement, time-and-materials and labor-hour contracts, the Contractor shall aggregate vouchered costs by the individual task for which the costs were incurred and clearly identify the task or job.
(c)
Alternate I ([
The contractor shall submit invoices electronically via email to the email addresses shown on the contract award document (
As prescribed in 2432.705(b), insert the following clause in all solicitations and contracts where the total estimated funds needed for the performance of the contract are not yet obligated.
NOT TO EXCEED LIMITATION ([
(a) The total estimated funds needed for the performance of this contract are not yet obligated. The total obligation of funds available at this time for performance of work or deliveries is [FILLIN#1#Insert Amount]. The Government shall not order, nor shall the contractor be required to accept orders for, or perform work or make deliveries that exceed the stated funding limit.
(b) The Government may unilaterally increase the amount obligated through contract modification(s) until the full contract value has been obligated.
As prescribed in 2437.110(e)(2), insert the following clause in all contracts for services:
CONDUCT OF WORK AND TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ([
(a) The Contracting Officer will provide the contractor with the name and contact information of the Government Technical Representative (GTR) assigned to this contract. The GTR will serve as the contractor's liaison with the Contracting Officer with regard to the conduct of work. The Contracting Officer will notify the contractor in writing of any change to the current GTR's status or the designation of a successor GTR.
(b) The GTR for liaison with the contractor as to the conduct of work is [to be inserted at time of award] or a successor designated by the Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer will notify the contractor in writing of any change to the current GTR's status or the designation of a successor GTR.
(c) The GTR will provide guidance to the contractor on the technical performance of the contract. Such guidance shall not be of a nature which:
(1) Causes the contractor to perform work outside the statement of work or specifications of the contract;
(2) Constitutes a change as defined in FAR 52.243 1;
(3) Causes an increase or decrease in the cost of the contract;
(4) Alters the period of performance or delivery dates; or
(5) Changes any of the other express terms or conditions of the contract.
(d) The GTR will issue technical guidance in writing or, if issued orally, he/she will confirm such direction in writing within five calendar days after oral issuance. The GTR may issue such guidance via telephone, facsimile (fax), or electronic mail.
(e) Other specific limitations [to be inserted by Contracting Officer]:
(f) The contractor shall promptly notify the Contracting Officer whenever the contractor believes that guidance provided by any government personnel, whether or not specifically provided pursuant to this clause, is of a nature described in paragraph (b) above.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(A) The deduction rate in dollars per day will be equal to the per month contract price divided by the number of business days in each month.
As prescribed in 2437.110(e)(5), insert the following clause in all contracts for services:
POST AWARD CONFERENCE ([
The Contractor shall be required to attend a post-award conference on DATE _____ to be held at ADDRESS _____, unless other arrangements are made. All Contractors must have a valid ID for security clearance into the building.
As prescribed in 2437.110(e)(6), insert the following clause in all indefinite quantity and requirements solicitations and contracts when level of effort task orders will be issued.
LABOR CATEGORIES, UNIT PRICES PER HOUR AND PAYMENT ([
The contractor shall provide the following types of labor at the corresponding unit price per hour in accordance with the terms of this contract:
The unit price per hour is inclusive of the hourly wage plus any applicable labor overhead, General and Administrative (G&A) expenses, and profit. Payment shall be made to the contractor upon delivery to, and acceptance by, the Government office requesting services. The total amounts billed shall be derived by multiplying the actual number of hours worked per category by the corresponding price per hour.
As prescribed in 2439.107(a), insert the following clause:
ACCESS TO HUD SYSTEMS ([
(a) Definitions: As used in this clause—
(b)
(1) The performance of this contract requires contractor employees to have access to a HUD system or systems. All such employees who do not already possess a current PIV Card acceptable to HUD shall be required to provide personal background information, undergo a background investigation (NACI or other OPM-required or approved investigation), including an FBI National Criminal History Fingerprint Check, and obtain a PIV Card prior to being permitted access to any such system in performance of this contract. HUD may accept a PIV Card issued by another Federal Government agency but shall not be required to do so. No contractor employee will be permitted access to any HUD system without a PIV Card.
(2) All contractor employees who require access to mission-critical systems or sensitive information contained within a HUD system or application(s) are required to have a more extensive background investigation. The investigation shall be commensurate with the risk and security controls involved in managing, using, or operating the system or applications(s).
(c)
(1) A United States (U.S.) citizen; or,
(2) A national of the United States (see 8 U.S.C. 1408); or,
(3) An alien lawfully admitted into, and lawfully permitted to be employed in the United States, provided that for any such individual, the Government is able to obtain sufficient background information to complete the investigation as required by this clause. Failure on the part of the contractor to provide sufficient information to perform a required investigation or the inability of the Government to verify information provided for affected contractor employees will result in denial of their access.
(d)
(1) The Government Technical Representative (GTR) shall notify the contractor of those contractor employee positions requiring background investigations.
(i) For each contractor employee requiring access to HUD information systems, the contractor shall submit the following properly completed forms: Standard Form (SF) 85, “Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive Positions,” FD 258 (Fingerprint Chart), and a partial Optional Form (OF) 306 (Items 1, 2, 6, 8-13, 16, and 17).
(ii) For each contractor employee requiring access to mission-critical systems and/or sensitive information contained within a HUD system and/or application(s), the contractor shall submit the following properly completed forms: SF-85P, “Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions;” FD 258; and a Fair Credit Reporting Act form (authorization for the credit-check portion of the investigation). Contractor employees shall not complete the Medical Release behind the SF-85P.
(iii) The SF-85, 85P, and OF-306 are available from OPM's Web site,
(2) The contractor shall deliver the forms and information required in paragraph (d)(1) of this clause to the GTR.
(3) Affected contractor employees who have had a federal background investigation without a subsequent break in federal employment or federal contract service exceeding 2 years may be exempt from the investigation requirements of this clause subject to verification of the previous
(4) The investigation process shall consist of a range of personal background inquiries and contacts (written and personal) and verification of the information provided on the investigative forms described in paragraph (d)(1) of this clause.
(5) Upon completion of the investigation process, the GTR will notify the contractor if any contractor employee is determined to be unsuitable to have access to the system(s), application(s), or information. Such an employee may not be given access to those resources. If any such employee has already been given access pending the results of the background investigation, the contractor shall ensure that the employee's access is revoked immediately upon receipt of the GTR's notification.
(6) Failure of the GTR to notify the contractor (see subparagraph (d)(1)) of any employee who should be subject to the requirements of this clause and is known, or should reasonably be known, by the contractor to be subject to the requirements of this clause, shall not excuse the contractor from making such employee(s) known to the GTR. Any such employee who is identified and is working under the contract, without having had the appropriate background investigation or furnished the required forms for the investigation, shall cease to perform such work immediately and shall not be given access to the system(s)/application(s) described in paragraph (b) of this clause until the contractor has provided the investigative forms required in paragraph (d)(1) of this clause for the employee to the GTR.
(7) The contractor shall notify the GTR in writing whenever a contractor employee for whom a background investigation package was required and submitted to HUD, or for whom a background investigation was completed, terminates employment with the contractor or otherwise is no longer performing work under this contract that requires access to the system(s), application(s), or information. The contractor shall provide a copy of the written notice to the Contracting Officer.
(e)
(1) HUD will issue a PIV Card to each contractor employee who is to be given access to HUD systems and does not already possess a PIV Card acceptable to HUD (see paragraph (b) of this clause). HUD will not issue the PIV Card until the contractor employee has successfully cleared an FBI National Criminal History Fingerprint Check, and HUD has initiated the background investigation for the contractor employee. Initiation is defined to mean that all background information required in paragraph (d)(1) of this clause has been delivered to HUD. The employee may not be given access prior to those two events. HUD may issue a PIV Card and grant access pending the completion of the background investigation. HUD will revoke the PIV Card and the employee's access if the background investigation process (including adjudication of investigation results) for the employee has not been completed within 6 months after the issuance of the PIV Card.
(2) PIV Cards shall identify individuals as contractor employees. Contractor employees shall display their PIV Cards on their persons at all times while working in a HUD facility, and shall present cards for inspection upon request by HUD officials or HUD security personnel.
(3) The contractor shall be responsible for all PIV Cards issued to the contractor's employees and shall immediately notify the GTR if any PIV Card(s) cannot be accounted for. The contractor shall promptly return PIV Cards to HUD as required by the FAR clause at 52.204-9. The contractor shall notify the GTR immediately whenever any contractor employee no longer has a need for his/her HUD-issued PIV Card (
(f)
(g)
(h)
(1) Neither the contractor nor any of its employees shall divulge or release data or information developed or obtained during performance of this contract, except to authorized government personnel with an established need to know, or upon written approval of the Contracting Officer. Information contained in all source documents and other media provided by HUD is the sole property of HUD.
(2) The contractor shall require that all employees who may have access to the system(s)/applications(s) identified in paragraph (b) of this clause sign a pledge of nondisclosure of information. The employees shall sign these pledges before they are permitted to perform work under this contract. The contractor shall maintain the signed pledges for a period of 3 years after final payment under this contract. The contractor shall provide a copy of these pledges to the GTR.
(i)
(1) The Contractor shall comply with applicable federal and HUD statutes, regulations, policies, and procedures governing the security of the system(s) to which the contractor's employees have access including, but not limited to:
(i) The Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) of 2002;
(ii) OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources, Appendix III, Security of Federal Automated Information Resources;
(iii) HUD Handbook 2400.25, Information Technology Security Policy;
(iv) HUD Handbook 732.3, Personnel Security/Suitability;
(v) Federal Information Processing Standards 201 (FIPS 201), Sections 2.1 and 2.2;
(vi) Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12); and
(vii) OMB Memorandum M-05-24, Implementing Guidance for HSPD-12. The HUD Handbooks are available online at:
(2) The contractor shall develop and maintain a compliance matrix that lists each requirement set forth in paragraphs, (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i)(1), and (m) of this clause with specific actions taken, and/or procedures implemented, to satisfy each requirement. The contractor shall identify an accountable person for each requirement, the date upon which actions/procedures were initiated/completed, and certify that information contained in this compliance matrix is correct. The contractor shall ensure that information in this compliance matrix is complete, accurate, and up-to-date at all times for the duration of this contract. Upon request, the contractor shall provide copies of the current matrix to the contracting officer and/or government technical representative.
(3) The Contractor shall ensure that its employees, in performance of the contract, receive annual training (or once if the contract is for less than one year) in HUD information technology security policies, procedures, computer ethics, and best practices in accordance with HUD Handbook 2400.25.
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
As prescribed in HUDAR Section 2444.204(a), insert the following clause in contracts and task orders with an estimated value exceeding $10,000,000.
CONSENT TO SUBCONTRACT ([
(a) Due to the substantive nature of subcontracting that may be necessary during performance of this contract, the Contracting Officer has determined that a consent for individual subcontracts is required to adequately protect the Government. Consent is required for—
(1) Cost-reimbursement, time-and-materials, or labor-hour subcontracts, or combination of such, in excess of $150,000 per year to a single subcontractor or consultant;
(2) Fixed price subcontracts in excess of 25% of the annual contract value to a single subcontractor or consultant.
(b) If subcontracts meeting the above parameters were not provided during the negotiation of the original contract award, the Contractor shall obtain post award consent and provide signed copies of the subcontract agreements within 10 days of consent.
(c) The Contractor shall provide the Contracting Officer with 30 days advance notification prior to changing subcontractors or existing subcontracting agreements, unless precluded due to circumstances beyond the control of the contractor. If advance notification is not feasible, the Contractor shall provide notification to the Contracting Officer no later than 10 days after the Contractor identifies the need to replace a subcontractor. The notification shall include a copy of the proposed new subcontracting agreement. Upon consent and finalization of the final subcontract agreement, the Contractor shall provide a copy of the signed agreement to the Contracting Officer.
(d) The Contracting Officer's consent to a subcontract does not constitute a determination of the acceptability of the subcontract terms or price, or of the allowability of costs.
(e) If not required elsewhere in the contract, no more than 30 calendar days after award, the Contractor shall provide a separate continuity of services plan to the Contracting Officer that will ensure services performed by subcontractors that cost more than 25% of the cost/price of the contract will continue uninterrupted in the event of performance problems or default by the subcontractor.
HUDAR Matrix.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request a revision to the currently approved information collection for the Regulations Governing the Inspection and Grading Services of Manufactured or Processed Dairy Products, and the Certification of Sanitary Design and Fabrication of Equipment Used in the Slaughter, Processing, and Packaging of Livestock and Poultry Products.
Comments received by July 27, 2015 will be considered.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments concerning this information collection document. Comments should be submitted online at
All comments will be posted without change, including any personal information provided, online at
Diane D. Lewis, at the above physical address, by telephone (202) 690-0530, or by email at
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden 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 collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice advises the public of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's record of decision for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Double-Crested Cormorant Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Effective May 28, 2015.
You may read the final environmental impact statement and the record of decision in our reading room. The reading room is located in Room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.
The record of decision, final environmental impact statement, and supporting information may also be found by visiting the APHIS Web site at
Mr. David A. Bergsten, Assistant Chief, Environmental and Risk Analysis Services, PPD, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 149, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238; (301) 851-3136.
On February 13, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the
Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing regulations in 40 CFR 1506.10, an Agency must wait a minimum of 30 days between publication of the EPA's notice of an FEIS and an Agency decision on an action covered by the FEIS. Accordingly, this notice advises the public that the waiting period has elapsed, and USDA-WS has issued a record of decision to assist the Corps in the implementation of the preferred alternative of the Corps' FEIS.
USDA-WS' record of decision has been prepared in accordance with: (1) NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has prepared a preliminary determination regarding a request from Dow AgroSciences LLC seeking a determination of nonregulated status for cotton designated as DAS-8191Ø-7, which has been genetically engineered for resistance to the herbicides 2,4-D and glufosinate. We are also making available for public review and comment our preliminary plant pest risk assessment, draft environmental assessment, and preliminary finding of no significant impact for the preliminary determination of nonregulated status.
We will consider any information that we receive on or before June 29, 2015.
You may submit any information by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents for this petition and any other information we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Supporting documents for this petition are also available on the APHIS Web site at
Dr. John Turner, Director, Environmental Risk Analysis Programs, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-3954, email:
Under the authority of the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701
The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. APHIS received a petition (APHIS Petition Number 13-262-01p) from Dow AgroSciences LLC (DAS) of Indianapolis, IN, seeking a determination of nonregulated status of cotton (
According to our process
After public comments are received on a completed petition, APHIS evaluates those comments and then provides a second opportunity for public involvement in our decisionmaking process. According to our public review process (see footnote 1), the second opportunity for public involvement follows one of two approaches, as described below.
If APHIS decides, based on its review of the petition and its evaluation and analysis of comments received during the 60-day public comment period on the petition, that the petition involves a GE organism that raises no substantive new issues, APHIS will follow Approach 1 for public involvement. Under Approach 1, APHIS announces in the
If APHIS decides, based on its review of the petition and its evaluation and analysis of comments received during the 60-day public comment period on the petition, that the petition involves a GE organism that raises substantive new issues, APHIS will follow Approach 2. Under Approach 2, APHIS first solicits written comments from the public on a draft EA and preliminary PPRA for a 30-day comment period through the publication of a
As part of our decision making process regarding a GE organism's regulatory status, APHIS prepares a PPRA to assess the plant pest risk of the article. APHIS also prepares the appropriate environmental documentation—either an EA or an environmental impact statement—in accordance with NEPA, to provide the Agency and the public with a review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts that may result if the petition request is approved.
APHIS has prepared a preliminary PPRA and has concluded that cotton designated as DAS-8191Ø-7, which has been genetically engineered for resistance to the herbicides 2,4-D and glufosinate, is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. In section 403 of the Plant Protection Act, “plant pest” is defined as any living stage of any of the following that can directly or indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plant or plant product: A protozoan, a nonhuman animal, a parasitic plant, a bacterium, a fungus, a virus or viroid, an infectious agent or other pathogen, or any article similar to or allied with any of the foregoing.
APHIS has also prepared a draft EA in which we present two alternatives based on our analysis of data submitted by DAS, a review of other scientific data, field tests conducted under APHIS oversight, and comments received on the petition. APHIS is considering the following alternatives: (1) Take no action,
The EA was prepared in accordance with (1) NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Based on APHIS' analysis of field and laboratory data submitted by DAS, references provided in the petition, peer-reviewed publications, information analyzed in the draft EA, the preliminary PPRA, comments provided by the public on the petition, and discussion of issues in the draft EA, APHIS has determined that cotton designated as DAS-8191Ø-7 is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. We have therefore reached a preliminary decision to make a determination of nonregulated status of cotton designated as DAS-8191Ø-7, whereby cotton designated as DAS-8191Ø-7 would no longer be subject to our regulations governing the introduction of certain GE organisms.
We are making available for a 30-day review period APHIS' preliminary regulatory determination of cotton designated as DAS-8191Ø-7, along with our preliminary PPRA, draft EA, and preliminary FONSI for the preliminary determination of nonregulated status. The draft EA, preliminary FONSI, preliminary PPRA, and our preliminary determination for cotton designated as DAS-8191Ø-7, as well as the DAS petition and the comments received on the petition, are available as indicated under
After the 30-day review period closes, APHIS will review and evaluate any information received during the 30-day review period. If, after evaluating the information received, APHIS determines that we have not received substantive new information that would warrant APHIS altering our preliminary regulatory determination or FONSI, substantially changing the proposed action identified in the draft EA, or substantially changing the analysis of impacts in the draft EA, APHIS will notify the public through an announcement on our Web site of our final regulatory determination. If, however, APHIS determines that we have received substantive new information that would warrant APHIS altering our preliminary regulatory determination or FONSI, substantially changing the proposed action identified in the draft EA, or substantially changing the analysis of impacts in the draft EA, then APHIS will notify the public of our intent to conduct additional analysis and to prepare an amended EA, a new FONSI, and/or a revised PPRA, which would be made available for public review through the publication of a notice of availability in the
7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
The Louisville and Jefferson County Riverport Authority, grantee of FTZ 29, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc. (HIAMS-HK), operator of Subzone 29F, at its facilities located in Harrodsburg, Kentucky. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on May 5, 2015.
HIAMS-HK already has authority to produce various automotive components, including electric-hybrid drive systems, mass air sensors, throttle bodies and chambers, starter motors, motor/generator units, alternators, distributors, static converters, inverter modules, rotors/stators, batteries, ignition coils, sensors and modules, fuel injectors, emissions control equipment, valves, pumps, and electronic control units for engines and transmissions within Subzone 29F. The current request would add a new finished product (automotive battery management systems) and foreign components to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt HIAMS-HK from customs duty payments on the foreign status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, HIAMS-HK would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to automotive battery management systems (1.7%) for the foreign status inputs noted below and in the existing scope of authority. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.
The components sourced from abroad are: Battery management covers and bases (duty rate—1.7%).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is July 7, 2015.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Pierre Duy at
In the matter of:
Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2015) (“EAR” or the “Regulations”),
On March 17, 2008, Darryl W. Jackson, the then-Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement (“Assistant Secretary”), signed a TDO denying Mahan Airways' export privileges for a period of 180 days on the grounds that its issuance was necessary in the public interest to prevent an imminent violation of the Regulations. The TDO also named as denied persons Blue Airways, of Yerevan, Armenia (“Blue Airways of Armenia”), as well as the “Balli Group Respondents,” namely, Balli Group PLC, Balli Aviation, Balli Holdings, Vahid Alaghband, Hassan Alaghband, Blue Sky One Ltd., Blue Sky Two Ltd., Blue Sky Three Ltd., Blue Sky Four Ltd., Blue Sky Five Ltd., and Blue Sky Six Ltd., all of the United Kingdom. The TDO was issued
The TDO subsequently has been renewed in accordance with Section 766.24(d), including most recently on January 16, 2015.
On May 13, 2015, OEE submitted a written request seeking to modify the January 16, 2015 Renewal Order. OEE is specifically requesting that Al Naser Airlines (a/k/a al-Naser Airlines a/k/a Alnaser Airlines and Air Freight Ltd.), Ali Abdullah Alhay (a/k/a Ali Alhay a/k/a Ali Abdullah Ahmed Alhay), and Bahar Safwa General Trading be added to the TDO.
Pursuant to Section 766.24, BIS may issue or renew an order temporarily denying a respondent's export privileges upon a showing that the order is necessary in the public interest to prevent an “imminent violation” of the Regulations. 15 CFR 766.24(b)(1) and 776.24(d). “A violation may be `imminent' either in time or degree of likelihood.” 15 CFR 766.24(b)(3). BIS may show “either that a violation is about to occur, or that the general circumstances of the matter under investigation or case under criminal or administrative charges demonstrate a likelihood of future violations.”
In support of its request to modify the January 16, 2015 Renewal Order, OEE has presented evidence detailing apparent efforts by Al Naser Airlines and one of its principals, Ali Abdullah Alhay, acting together with Bahar Safwa General Trading, to obtain aircraft subject to the Regulations for export or reexport directly or indirectly to Mahan Airways or to facilitate or support such activities in violation of the TDO and the Regulations. The January 16, 2015 Renewal Order, like the July 22, 2014 Renewal Order (and the prior renewal order and original TDO), provides
OEE's investigation indicates that at least two aircraft, specifically an Airbus A321 bearing manufacturer's serial number (“MSN”) 550 and an Airbus A340 bearing MSN 164, were purchased by Al Naser Airlines in late 2014/early 2015 and are currently located in Iran under the possession, control, and/or ownership of Mahan Airways.
OEE has presented evidence that Ali Abdullah Alhay is a twenty-five percent owner of Al Naser Airlines, and has presented copies of sales agreements for the aircraft that have been obtained from the seller and show that Ali Abdullah Alhay signed both agreements for Al Naser Airlines.
The sales agreement for Airbus A321 (MSN 550) is dated November 24, 2014, and lists a “Final Sale Date” of January 30, 2015. Payment information for the aircraft reveals that between November 2014 and January 2015, Ali Abdullah Alhay made two electronic funds transfers (“EFT”) in the amounts of $815,000 and $600,000 respectively. The majority of the purchase price for this aircraft was then paid via a January 20, 2015 EFT made by Bahar Safwa General Trading in the amount of $2.5 million.
The sales agreement for the Airbus A340 (MSN 164) is dated December 17, 2014, and lists a “Final Sale Date” of December 23, 2014. Payment information also reveals a November 28, 2014 EFT from Bahar Safwa General Trading in the amount of $650,000.
Aviation industry databases indicate that in or about May 2015, Mahan Airways acquired at least possession and/or control of MSNs 550 and 164, and that both aircraft are now physically located in Tehran, Iran.
The proposed respondents also have been attempting to obtain other controlled aircraft, including aircraft physically located in the United States in similarly-patterned transactions during the same recent time period involving two Airbus A320s bearing MSNs 82 and 99, respectively.
Based on the risk of diversion to Iran, including specifically to Mahan Airways, both Airbus A320s were detained by OEE Special Agents prior to their planned export from the United States. This risk of diversion presented by these intended exports has been corroborated by the evidence presented in connection with the Airbus aircraft bearing MSNs 164 and 550 discussed,
I find that the evidence presented by OEE demonstrates continued efforts to evade the TDO and that additional violations are imminent. Adding Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa General Trading to the TDO is necessary to give notice to persons and companies in the United States and abroad that they should cease dealing with these parties in export and re-export transactions involving items subject to the EAR or other activities prohibited by the TDO. Doing so is consistent with the public interest to preclude future violations of the EAR and prevent Mahan Airways' active efforts to evade the TDO.
The export privileges of Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa General Trading are being temporarily denied on an
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR, or in any other activity subject to the EAR; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR, or in any other activity subject to the EAR.
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of a Denied Person any item subject to the EAR;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by a Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby a Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from a Denied Person of any item subject to the EAR that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from a Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the EAR with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
In accordance with the provisions of Sections 766.24(e) of the EAR, Al Naser Airlines, Bahar Safwa General Trading, and/or Ali Abdullah Alhay may, at any time, appeal this Order by filing a full written statement in support of the
In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(d) of the EAR, BIS may seek renewal of this Order by filing a written request not later than 20 days before the expiration date. A renewal request may be opposed by Al Nasser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, or Bahar Safwa General Trading as provided in Section 766.24(d), by filing a written submission with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement, which must be received not later than seven days before the expiration date of the Order.
A copy of this Order shall be provided to Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa General Trading and shall be published in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On September 30, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated the antidumping duty new shipper review of small diameter graphite electrodes from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the period of review (POR) of February 1, 2014, through August 31, 2014, for Xuzhou Jianglong Carbon Products Co., Ltd. (Jianglong).
Hermes Pinilla or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3477 or (202) 482-1690, respectively.
The merchandise covered by the order includes all small diameter graphite electrodes of any length, whether or not finished, of a kind used in furnaces, with a nominal or actual diameter of 400 millimeters (16 inches) or less, and whether or not attached to a graphite pin joining system or any other type of joining system or hardware. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 8545.11.0010
We are conducting this new shipper review in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
Based on information placed on the record by interested parties in the context of this new shipper review, we determine that Jianglong does not meet the minimum requirements in its request for a new shipper review under 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(A) and (C). Therefore, we preliminarily determine that it is appropriate to rescind the new shipper review with respect to Jianglong.
We will disclose analysis performed to parties to the proceeding, normally not later than ten days after the day of the public announcement of, or, if there is no public announcement, within five days after the date of publication of, this notice.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results and submit written arguments or case briefs within 30 days after the publication of this notice, unless otherwise notified by the Department.
Any interested party who wishes to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request within 30 dates after the day of publication of this notice. A request should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed.
We will issue the final rescission of this new shipper review or final results of this new shipper review, including the results of our analysis of issues raised in any briefs, within 90 days after
Jianglong's entries are currently subject to the PRC-wide rate. Although we intend to rescind this new shipper review, we initiated an administrative review for the period February 1, 2014, through January 31, 2015, which also covers the entries subject to this new shipper review.
Effective upon publication of the final rescission or the final results of this new shipper review, we will instruct CBP to discontinue the option of posting a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for entries of subject merchandise by Jianglong. If we proceed to a final rescission of this new shipper review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the PRC-wide rate for Jianglong. If we issue final results of the new shipper review, we will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits, effective upon the publication of the final results, at the rate established therein.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This new shipper review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(f).
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.
Notice; Request for Information (RFI)
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and other member laboratories of the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer (FLC) offer a variety of specialized scientific and technical facilities, products, and services to the public, including access to instrumentation, reference materials, software, and calibrations. Access to such services is provided in a variety of ways, and may require the payment of fees or other costs and/or an application or agreement. NIST and other members of the FLC request information from the public regarding recommendations for online platforms that can broaden awareness and make it easier for the public to search for, locate, learn about, and obtain access to these facilities, products, and services. The information received in response to this RFI will be provided by NIST to various interagency groups for consideration and used to publicize various federal facilities and resources.
Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on June 29, 2015. Written comments in response to the RFI should be submitted according to the instructions in the
Electronic comments regarding the RFI should be addressed to Dr. Courtney Silverthorn by email to
Dr. Courtney Silverthorn, Senior Interagency Policy Specialist, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technology Partnerships Office, 100 Bureau Drive MS 2200, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, 301-975-4189, or by email to
Private sector online platforms could improve the availability of scientific and technical resources and services in a number of ways. For example, a private sector online platform might maintain a database of such resources and provide a simple way for a member of the public to initiate access. NIST and other member laboratories will evaluate submitted platforms for technology and research capability matches and may contact appropriate platforms directly to arrange for possible publication of specific facilities, products, and/or services. NIST and other members of the FLC are especially interested in recommendations that can broaden awareness and improve access at no cost to the government.
As part of the Open Data initiative, NIST and other members of the FLC can make data about the resources of interest available to the public. For examples, see:
To respond to this RFI, please submit written comments by email to Dr. Courtney Silverthorn at
NIST is specifically interested in receiving input pertaining to the following questions:
(1) What is the web address of the online platform you are recommending? Is the platform specific to a particular research sector (
(2) What is the cost model of the online platform you are recommending? Is there a listing fee, a percentage of the service fee retained, or is it a no-cost information listing only?
15 U.S.C. 3710(g).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permit modification.
Notice is hereby given that Larry Wood, LDWood BioConsulting, Inc., 425 Kennedy Street, Jupiter, FL 33468 has been issued a modification to scientific research Permit No. 18136.
The modification and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone: (301) 427-8401; fax: (301) 713-0376.
Amy Hapeman or Brendan Hurley; phone: (301) 427-8401.
On February 3, 2015, notice was published in the
Permit No. 18136 authorizes the permit holder to continue to describe the abundance and movements of an aggregation of hawksbill sea turtles (
Issuance of this modification, as required by the ESA was based on a finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered or threatened species, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Historically, changes in fisheries management regulations have been shown to result in impacts to individuals within the fishery. An understanding of social impacts in fisheries—achieved through the collection of data on fishing communities, as well as on individuals who fish—is a requirement under several federal laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) (as amended 2007). The collection of this data not only helps to inform legal requirements for the existing management actions, but will inform future management actions requiring equivalent information.
Fisheries rationalization programs have an impact on those individuals participating in the affected fishery, as well as their communities and may also have indirect effects on other fishery participants. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council is considering the implementation of a new, yet to be defined, rationalization program for the Gulf of Alaska groundfish trawl fishery. A data collection was conducted in 2014 (OMB Control No. 0648-0685) to obtain relevant socio-cultural information about current participants in most sectors of this fishery.
The proposed data collection complements this 2014 effort by collecting comparable information from individuals participating in the catcher processor fleet that operates in the North Pacific. The data collected will be used to develop a baseline description of the catcher processor sector operating in the North Pacific that can be used to analyze impacts that future fisheries management changes, such as the new bycatch management changes being developed for the Gulf of Alaska trawl fishery, may have on catcher processor businesses, as well as individuals and communities that are dependent on this sector. The measurement of these changes, combined with those noted in the 2014 survey, will lead to a greater understanding of the social impacts new management measures may have on the individuals and communities.
This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 29, 2015.
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Defense Travel Management Office, DoD.
Notice of Revised Non-Foreign Overseas Per Diem Rates.
The Defense Travel Management Office is publishing Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin Number 296. This bulletin lists revisions in the per diem rates prescribed for U.S. Government employees for official travel in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands and Possessions of the United States when applicable. AEA changes announced in Bulletin Number 194 remain in effect. Bulletin Number 296 is being published in the
Ms. Sonia Malik, 571-372-1276.
This document gives notice of revisions in per diem rates prescribed by the Defense Travel Management Office for non-foreign areas outside the contiguous United States. It supersedes Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin Number 295. Per Diem Bulletins published periodically in the
Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 27, 2015.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Daphne Garcia, (202) 219-2024.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
This study consists of two experiments, each of which will examine the impact of a single change to the Pell grant eligibility criteria. The first experiment will relax the prohibition on receipt of Pell grants by students with a bachelors' degree. Individuals eligible for the first experiment must have a bachelor's degree, be unemployed or underemployed, and pursue a vocational training program up to one year in duration. The second experiment will reduce the minimum duration and intensity levels of programs that Pell grant recipients must participate in from 15 weeks with 600 minimum clock hours to 8 weeks with 150 minimum clock hours. Each experiment will operate through a set of PGE schools that provide education and training services that qualify as PGE programs.
Participants in both experiments will be randomly assigned to either (1) a treatment group, which will have expanded access to Pell grants; or (2) a control group, which will not have access. Within both experiments, the treatment group will be very similar to the control at the time of random assignment except for access to Pell grants. Subsequent differences in the employment and earnings outcomes between treatment and control group members can then be attributed to Pell grant access. The first experiment will involve roughly 27 PGE schools with an average of 25 students participating per school. The second experiment will involve roughly 27 PGE schools with an average of 100 participating students per school. The expected sample of both experiments combined is approximately 3,375 students. Data for this evaluation will come from participants' FAFSA applications, PGE school administrative records, and SSA earnings statements. The study participant enrollment period is expected to last from November 2012 to June 2016. A data extracts from FAFSA applications will occur in July 2018. Administrative data extracts from PGE schools will occur between January and March during years 2015-2018.
Department of Energy.
Notice of Open Meeting: correction.
On May 15, 2015, the Department of Energy (DOE) published a notice of open meeting announcing a meeting on June 18, 2015 of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah (80 FR 27941). This document makes a correction to that notice.
Jennifer Woodard, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Department of Energy Paducah Site Office, 1017 Majestic Drive, Suite 200, Lexington, Kentucky 40513, (270) 441-6820.
In the
In that notice under
Department of Energy.
Notice of Open Meeting.
This notice announces an open meeting of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB). SEAB was reestablished pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) (the Act). This notice is provided in accordance with the Act.
Applied Research Center, 301 Gateway Drive, Garden Room, Aiken, SC 29808.
Karen Gibson, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; telephone (202) 586-3787;
Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions may do so during the meeting. Approximately 30 minutes will be reserved for public comments. Time allotted per speaker will depend on the number who wish to speak but will not exceed 5 minutes. The Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Those wishing to speak should register to do so beginning at 8:30 a.m. on June 17th.
Those not able to attend the meeting or who have insufficient time to address the committee are invited to send a written statement to Karen Gibson, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington DC 20585, email to
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available on the SEAB Web site or by contacting Ms. Gibson. She may be reached at the postal address or email address above, or by visiting SEAB's Web site at
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D) and the Office of Management and Budget's implementing regulations, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the information collection, FERC-725G (Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System: PRC Standards), as modified in this docket. The Commission previously published a notice in the
Comments regarding the proposed revision to this information collection must be received on or before June 29, 2015.
Comments, identified by Docket Number RD15-2, may be filed in the following ways:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
The Commission requires the information collected by the FERC-725G to implement the statutory provisions of section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA).
On February 3, 2006, the Commission issued Order No. 672, implementing section 215 of the FPA.
In Order No. 763, the Commission approved Reliability Standard PRC-006-1, but directed NERC to include explicit language in a subsequent version of the Reliability Standard clarifying that applicable entities are required to implement corrective actions identified by the planning coordinator in accordance with a schedule established by the same planning coordinator.
NERC filed a petition on December 15, 2014 requesting approval of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-006-2 addressing the Commission's directive in Order No. 763. The NERC petition states that the “[p]roposed Reliability Standard PRC-006-2, through proposed new Requirement R15, and proposed enhanced language of the existing Requirements R9 and R10, requires the Planning Coordinator to develop a schedule for implementation of any necessary corrective actions, and requires that the applicable entities will implement these corrective actions according to the schedule established by the Planning Coordinator.”
Reliability Standard PRC-006-2 was approved on 3/4/2015 in a Delegated Order.
Estimates for the additional burden and cost imposed by the order in Docket No. RD15-2-000 follow.
• $72.92/hour [($84.96 + $60.87)/2], the average of the salary plus benefits for a manager ($84.96/hour) and an electrical engineer ($60.87/hour), is used for the hourly cost for the reporting requirements associated with Requirement R15 and Measure M15.
• $29.01/hour, the salary plus benefits for a file clerk, is used for the hourly cost for the evidence retention requirements associated with Requirement R15 and Measure M15.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric proceeding has been initiated by the Commission:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i. Deadline for filing comments, protests, or motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance of this notice by the Commission.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, protests, and motions to intervene using the Commission's eFiling system at
j.
k. A summary of the meeting will be prepared for the project record.
l. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to participate in the teleconference. Please call Jennifer Polardino at (202) 502-6437 or send an email to
m. FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to
n. Description of Proceeding: On April 10, 2015, the Town of Stuyvesant, New York and Albany Engineering Corporation, licensees for the Stuyvesant Falls Hydroelectric Project, filed an extension of time request to comply with license articles 301, 401(a) and 406, 401(a) and 407, 410, 411, 412, 413, and 414 pursuant to an Order Issuing New License (143 FERC ¶ 62,016). On April 15, 2015, the U.S. Department of Interior (Interior) filed a notice of intervention and protest on behalf of its component bureau, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the licensees' April 10, 2015 extension of time requests. On April 28, 2015, the licensees filed a revised extension of time request to comply with several license articles, including Article 301 of the license. On May 11, 2015, Interior filed a modified protest in response to the licensees' revised extension of time request. In its filing, Interior does not object to the request for an extension of time to comply with license articles 401(a) and 406, 401(a) and 407, 410, 411, 412, and 413. Therefore, Commission staff will address these extension of time requests in a separate proceeding. However, Interior continues to object to the extension of time requested to commence and complete construction of fish protection and passage facilities pursuant to Article 301. For that reason, Commission staff are scheduling a teleconference to discuss the extension of time request for Article 301 on Wednesday, June 17, 2015 beginning at 9:00 a.m. (EDT) and concluding at 10:30 a.m. (EDT). All interested entities are invited to join the teleconference as discussed above.
o. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
p.
q.
r. Agency Comments—Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described proceeding. If any agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments.
Take notice that on May 20, 2015, pursuant to sections 309, 205, and 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824(e), 824(d), and 825(h) and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, Southern Company Services, Inc., as agent for Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company, and Southern Power Company (Southern Companies), KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company, The Empire District Electric Company, and Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. (collectively, Complainants), filed a formal complaint against Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., as agent and tariff administrator of the MISO Open-Access Transmission Tariff (MISO or Respondent), alleging that: (1) Respondent has levied unlawful charges upon Complainants in violation of section 205 of the FPA, and; (2) Respondent's rates for transmission service are unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory and preferential and in violation of established precedent under FPA sections 205 and 206.
The Complainants certify that a copy of the complaint has been served on the Respondent.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Southeastern Power Administration, DOE.
Notice of proposed rates, public forum, and opportunities for public review and comment.
Southeastern Power Administration (Southeastern) proposes to revise existing schedules of rates and charges applicable to the sale of power from the Cumberland System of Projects effective for a one-year period, October 1, 2015, through September 30, 2016. Interested persons may review the rates and supporting studies and submit written comments. Southeastern will evaluate all comments received in this process.
Written comments are due on or before August 26, 2015. A public information and comment forum will be held at 2:00 p.m., on June 30, 2015. Persons desiring to attend the forum should notify Southeastern at least seven (7) days before the scheduled forum date. Persons desiring to speak at the forum should notify Southeastern at least three (3) days before the scheduled forum date, so that a list of forum participants can be prepared. Others may speak if time permits.
The forum will be held at: The Inn at Opryland, 2401 Music Valley Drive, Nashville, TN 37214-1002. Written comments should be submitted to: Administrator, Southeastern Power Administration, Department of Energy, 1166 Athens Tech Road, Elberton, GA 30635-6711.
Virgil G. Hobbs III, Southeastern Power Administration, Department of Energy, 1166 Athens Tech Road, Elberton, GA 30635-6711, (706) 213-3800.
In March 2014, the Corps lifted operating restrictions on the Wolf Creek Project. The operating restrictions on the Center Hill Project remain in effect. As a consequence, Southeastern implemented a Revised Interim Operating Plan that provides reduced capacity and schedulable energy to the outside customers.
Southeastern continues to discuss, analyze and seek guidance on the issue from other relevant agencies.
The first rate scenario includes the rates necessary to recover costs under the Revised Interim Operating Plan. Under this scenario, the capacity rate at the TVA border is $2.28 per kilowatt per month and the energy charge is 14.79 mills per kilowatt-hour. The outside customers would pay their portion of the transmission credit provided TVA for delivery of capacity and energy to neighboring system interconnection points, as agreed by contract between Southeastern and TVA. This rate would remain in effect under the Revised Interim Operating Plan.
The second rate scenario would recover cost from capacity and energy. The revenue requirement under this alternative would be $78,500,000 per year. This scenario would be in effect if Southeastern changes the Revised Interim Operating Plan.
The third rate scenario is based on the original Cumberland Marketing Policy. All costs are recovered from capacity and excess energy. The rates under this alternative would be as follows:
These rates would go into effect once the Corps lifts the restrictions on the operation of the Wolf Creek and Center Hill Projects and the Revised Interim Operating Plan and Southeastern returns to normal operations.
The referenced repayment studies are available for examination at 1166 Athens Tech Road, Elberton, Georgia 30635-6711. The Proposed Rate Schedules CBR-1-I, CSI-1-I, CEK-1-I, CM-1-I, CC-1-J, CK-1-I, CTV-1-I, CTVI-1-B, and Replacement-3 are also available.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NSPS for Hot Mix Asphalt Facilities (40 CFR part 60, subpart I) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1127.11, OMB Control No. 2060-0083) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before June 29, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0040, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1964.06, OMB Control No. 2060-0496), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before June 29, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0079, to: (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
There is also an increase of six responses due to a correction. The previous ICR did not account for the five-year performance test notifications and reports in calculating the number of responses.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturing Plants (40 CFR part 61, subpart N) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1081.11, OMB Control No. 2060-0043) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before June 29, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0038, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Waste
Additional comments may be submitted on or before June 29, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2014-0925, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Bryan Groce, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Program Implementation and Information Division, (5303P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-8750; fax number: (703) 308-0514; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
On February 7, 2014, EPA published the electronic manifest (e-Manifest) Final Rule. The final rule established new manifest requirements that authorized the use of electronic manifests (or e-Manifests) as a means to track off-site shipments of hazardous waste from a generator's site to the site of the receipt and disposition of the hazardous waste. EPA is taking action now to establish the national e-Manifest system, but unknown variables (
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “RFS2 Voluntary RIN Quality Assurance Program” (EPA ICR No.2473.03, OMB Control No. 2060-0688 to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before July 27, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Mary Manners, USEPA National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory/OAR, 2565 Plymouth Road, Rm #N07, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: 734-214-4288; fax number: 734-214-4873; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The RFS program requires that specified volumes of renewable fuel be used as transportation fuel, heating oil, and/or jet fuel each year. To accomplish this, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes applicable percentage standards annually that apply to the sum of all gasoline and diesel produced or imported. The percentage standards are set so that if every obligated party meets the percentages, then the amount of renewable fuel, cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, and advanced biofuel used will meet the volumes required on a nationwide basis.
Obligated parties demonstrate compliance with the standards through the acquisition of unique Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) assigned by the producer or importer to every batch of renewable fuel produced or imported. Validly generated RINs show that a certain volume of qualifying renewable fuel was produced or imported. The RFS program also includes provisions stipulating the conditions under which RINs are invalid, the liability carried by a party that transfers or uses an invalid RIN, and how invalid RINs must be treated.
The RIN system within the RFS program contains unique features that make it somewhat challenging for the obligated parties that need RINs for compliance purposes to verify that those RINs have been validly generated. Several cases of fraudulently generated RINs have compelled some obligated parties to limit their business relationships to only those parties that appear most trustworthy. This reaction by the obligated parties made it more difficult for smaller renewable fuel producers to sell their RINs and reduced the overall liquidity of the RIN market. To ensure that RINs are validly generated, individual obligated parties are now conducting their own audits of renewable fuel production facilities, potentially duplicating one another's efforts. These circumstances have created inefficiencies in the RIN market, prompting requests for an additional regulatory mechanism that would reduce the risk of potentially invalid RINs, return liquidity to the RIN market, and reduce the cost of verifying the validity of RINs.
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Submission for OMB review and comments request.
This is a joint application form for working capital loan guarantees provided by Ex-Im Bank and the Small Business Administration. This collection of information is necessary, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 635(a)(1) and 15 U.S.C. 636(a)(14), to determine eligibility of the applicant for Ex-Im Bank or SBA assistance.
The Export-Import Bank has made a change to the report to have the applicant provide the number of employees or annual sales volume. That information is needed to determine whether or not they meet the SBA's definition of a small business. The applicant already provides their name, address and industry code (NAICS). These additional pieces of information will allow Ex-Im Bank to better track the extent to which its support assists U.S. small businesses.
The other change that Ex-Im Bank has made is to require the applicant to indicate whether it is a minority-owned business, women-owned business and/or veteran-owned business. Although answers to the questions are mandatory, the company may choose any one of the three answers: Yes/No/Not Disclosed. The option of “Not Disclosed” allows a company to consciously decline to answer the specific question should they not wish to provide that information.
The application tool can be reviewed at:
Comments must be received on or before July 27, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
This form affects entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before July 27, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before July 27, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments must be submitted on or before July 27, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by
• Agency Web site:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• Email:
• FAX: (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102.
• Mail: Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551.
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at:
Federal Reserve Board Acting Clearance Officer—Mark Tokarski—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
The following information collection, which is being handled under this delegated authority, has received initial Board approval and is hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collection, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
A bank is required to comply with the advanced approaches framework if it meets either of two independent threshold criteria: (1) Consolidated total assets of $250 billion or more, as reported on the most recent year-end regulatory reports; or (2) consolidated total on-balance sheet foreign exposure of $10 billion or more at the most recent year-end.
A BHC is required to comply with the advanced approaches framework if the BHC has (1) consolidated total assets (excluding assets held by an insurance underwriting subsidiary) of $250 billion or more, as reported on the most recent year-end regulatory reports; (2) consolidated total on-balance sheet foreign exposure of $10 billion or more at the most recent year-end; or (3) a subsidiary depository institution (DI) that is meets the criteria to be subject to the advanced approaches rule, or elects to adopt the advanced approaches. As of September 30, 2014, 13 BHCs meet the above criteria and are therefore subject to the advanced approaches rule.
Also, some banks or BHCs may voluntarily decide to adopt the advanced approaches framework. Both
The Pillar 2 Guidance sets the expectation that respondents maintain certain documentation as described in paragraphs 37, 41, 43, and 46 of this portion of the guidance. Details of the expectations for each section are provided below.
Federal Acquisition Service; General Services Administration.
Notice.
This notice announces that the Product and Service Codes (PSC) Manual, which provides codes to describe products, services, and research and development purchased by the government, is in the process of being updated. The General Services Administration (GSA), which maintains the PSC Manual, is in the process of updating the manual. The update includes the addition, deletion or revisions of codes. The revised PSC Manual will be effective October 1, 2015 (FY 2016).
Submit comments, June 29, 2015, identified by Notice-2015-QVO-01, Federal Procurement Data System Product and Service Codes Manual Update, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Ms. Pat Brooks at
The Product and Service Codes (PSC) Manual provides codes to describe products, services, and research and development purchased by the government. The codes are one of the data elements reported in the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS). The GSA, which maintains the PSC Manual, is in the process of updating the manual. The update includes the addition, deletion or revisions of codes.
The list of PSC code revisions is titled “Notice-2015-QVO-01; Docket No. 2015-0002; Sequence 12, Federal Procurement Data System Product and Service Codes Manual” and is viewable and searchable on
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses; and (e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Using Rapid Assessment Methods to Understand Issues in HIV Prevention, Care and Treatment in the United States—New—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention requests approval for a 3-year clearance to collect data using rapid qualitative inquiries to understand issues related to HIV prevention, care, and treatment in the United States. Rapid inquiries are concentrated data collection and iterative data analytic efforts focused on timely and relevant responses to urgent issues and research questions. Although we will collect the majority of data using qualitative methods, many studies covered under this generic information collection, will involve a mixed methods approach for data collection.
The rapid inquiries will include multiple well-established qualitative methodologies, which may include but not be limited to in-depth individual interviews, focus groups, direct observations, case studies, document reviews, or brief quantitative surveys assessing demographics, behaviors, attitudes, intentions, beliefs, or other attributes of the respondents. In some assessments, additional contextual information may be collected, such as information about the respondents' community, workplaces, or organizations and places where they interact. CDC expects to collect qualitative data from approximately 1,800 respondents, assuming three research studies per year with each research study collecting data from 200 respondents.
For all proposed studies under this generic information collection, our efforts are expected to provide insight regarding a wide array of HIV-related programs designed for various populations throughout the United States, including but not limited to: Persons living with HIV/AIDS (PLWH); persons at elevated risk for acquiring new HIV infection or transmitting existing HIV infection to others; clinicians or other HIV care providers; men who have sex with men (MSM); transgender persons; injection and noninjection drug users; incarcerated populations or ex-prisoners; commercial sex workers; male and female heterosexual groups at high risk for HIV infection; and other providers and organizations (
Recruitment procedures will vary slightly based on the target population and research design of each information collection submitted under this generic information collection. Partner organizations such as public and private health clinics and community-based organizations that serve the target populations in the respective geographic locations may be contacted for their assistance in recruitment of potential respondents. Respondents may be identified and selected as key informants and invited to participate by contractor staff members.
Sampling recruitment methods may include, but not be limited to: Use of social networking sites, the Internet, print marketing materials, and other methods to find and enroll respondents into the research study.
All data collection tools will be pretested and interviews conducted by trained personnel. The data collection will take place at a time and place that is convenient to the respondent. Locations will be private. Data collection may be audio-recorded and transcribed with the consent of the respondent.
The data collections supported under this generic information collection will be used to provide insight regarding barriers and facilitators to HIV prevention, care, and treatment in the United States and territories, and thus suggest ways CDC might improve programmatic activities along the continuum of HIV prevention, treatment and care.
The total estimated annualized burden hours are 918. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of draft document available for public comment.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the availability of the following draft document for public comment entitled “NIOSH List of Antineoplastic and Other Hazardous Drugs in Healthcare Settings: Proposed Additions to the NIOSH Hazardous Drug List 2016.” The document and instructions for submitting comments can be found at
This guidance document does not have the force and effect of law.
• DATES:
• ADDRESSES:
• FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
• SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic or written comments must be received by July 27, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by CDC-2015-0034 and Docket Number NIOSH 233-A, by either of the two following methods:
•
•
Barbara MacKenzie, NIOSH, Division of Applied Research and Technology, Robert A. Taft Laboratories, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-26, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226. (513) 533-8132 (not a toll free number). Email:
The NIOSH Alert: “Preventing Occupational Exposures to Antineoplastic and Other Hazardous Drugs in Health Care Settings” was published in September 2004 (
NIOSH reviewed the recommendations of the peer reviewers and stakeholders and determined that 33 drugs in addition to the 3 drugs with manufacturer's warnings, were determined to have one or more characteristics of a hazardous drug and this list of 36 drugs is being published for comment in CDC-2015-0034 and NIOSH Docket Number 233-A. The list of proposed additions can be found at
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Research on the Efficacy and Feasibility of Essentials for Parenting Toddlers and Preschoolers—New—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) seeks a two-year OMB approval to conduct a new information collection for a study entitled, “Research on the Efficacy and Feasibility of Essentials for Parenting Toddlers and Preschoolers”.
Child maltreatment is both widespread and impactful. It is estimated that 1 in 58 U.S. children had been maltreated in a 1-year period (
Parent training is arguably the single most effective prevention initiative developed to date. Although there are potentially far-reaching impacts of parent training to improve public health, empirically-supported parent training is not widely available. The public health challenge is how to make the content of these empirically-supported parent training programs—which largely focus on the same parenting skills and approaches—accessible to the majority of American parents.
To leverage the strength of empirically supported parent training as a broadly disseminated prevention tool, the CDC has developed a resource tool called “Essentials for Parenting Toddlers and Preschoolers (EFP)”. This web-based resource includes the typical content of empirically supported parent training programs and uses a psychoeducational approach including modeling (through its videos) and practice (through its activities).
This study is an empirical evaluation using an intensive repeated measures design to test the efficacy, feasibility, and use of EFP as administered in guided and unguided formats. The proposed data collection fits into NCIPC's research agenda's priorities in preventing child maltreatment.
There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annual burden hours are 2,050.
Cost per respondent is $40 estimated at 2 hours × $20.00 per hour.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a guidance entitled “M7 Assessment and Control of DNA Reactive (Mutagenic) Impurities in Pharmaceuticals to Limit Potential Carcinogenic Risk.” The guidance was prepared under the auspices of the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical
Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Division of Drug Information (HFD-240), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993; or the Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-7800. See the
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has participated in many meetings designed to enhance harmonization and is committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and then reduce differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies.
ICH was organized to provide an opportunity for tripartite harmonization initiatives to be developed with input from both regulatory and industry representatives. FDA also seeks input from consumer representatives and others. ICH is concerned with harmonization of technical requirements for the registration of pharmaceutical products among three regions: The European Union, Japan, and the United States. The six ICH sponsors are the European Commission; the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations; the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare; the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association; CDER and CBER, FDA; and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The ICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is provided by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA).
The ICH Steering Committee includes representatives from each of the ICH sponsors and the IFPMA, as well as observers from the World Health Organization, Health Canada, and the European Free Trade Area.
In the
After consideration of the comments received and revisions to the guidance, a final draft of the guidance was submitted to the ICH Steering Committee and endorsed by the three participating regulatory agencies in June 2014.
The guidance provides guidance on the regulation of genotoxic impurities in new drug substances and drug products.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; reopening of the comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reopening the comment period for an additional 30 days, for the notice of availability
FDA is reopening and extending the comment period on the draft guidance. Submit either electronic or written comments by June 29, 2015.
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the Internet. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Jennifer Dickey, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5262, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5028.
In the
The Agency received a request for an extension of the comment period for the draft guidance (Docket No. FDA-2014-D-2065-0005). The request conveyed concern that the current 90-day comment period does not allow sufficient time to respond. FDA has considered the request and is reopening and extending the comment period for the draft guidance for 30 days. The Agency believes that a 30-day extension allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments without significantly delaying further FDA action on this guidance document.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing a summary report of the pediatric studies of meropenem conducted in accordance with the Public Health Service Act (the PHS Act) and is making available requested labeling changes for meropenem. The Agency is making this information available consistent with the PHS Act.
Lori Gorski, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6415, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2200, FAX: 301-796-9855, email:
In the
A written request for pediatric studies of meropenem was issued on September 10, 2004, to AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, the holder of the new drug application (NDA) for meropenem. FDA did not receive a response to the written request. Accordingly, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued a request for proposals to conduct the pediatric studies described in the written request on August 15, 2005, and awarded funds to Duke University and Stanford University on September 28, 2007, to complete the studies described in the written request.
On completion of the studies, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) submitted a final clinical study report for meropenem to FDA for review under investigational new drug application (IND) 101043: (NICHD-2005-18) “A Multiple Dose PK Study of Meropenem In Young Infants (less than 91 days of age) With Suspected or Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections.”
In the
The meropenem docket remained opened for public comment from February 27, 2012, until March 28, 2012. There were no comments submitted to the docket during that time. The key findings of this final clinical study report are:
The submitted study was an open-label, non-comparative, multicenter, prospective, multiple pharmacokinetic (PK) and safety study in infants less than 91 days of age. The study enrolled 200 infants with a median postnatal age of 21 days (range 1 to 92 days) and a median gestation age (GA) of 27.8 weeks (range 22.5 to 40 weeks). Infants with complicated intra-abdominal infections who were receiving meropenem based on local standard of care were eligible for enrollment. Complicated intra-abdominal infections were defined per the protocol as physical, radiologic, or bacteriologic findings of complicated intra-abdominal infection to include peritonitis, necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) grade II or higher by Bell's criteria, Hirschsprung's disease with perforation, spontaneous perforation, meconium ileus with perforation, bowel obstruction with perforation, as evidenced by free peritoneal air on abdominal radiograph, intestinal pneumatosis, or portal venous gas on abdominal radiographic examination, or possible NEC.
The study was not statistically powered to establish efficacy because the Division of Anti-Infective Products agreed that extrapolation of efficacy to pediatric populations from adult populations was acceptable. However, clinical efficacy endpoints were also evaluated. The efficacy assessment included a comparison of the clinical status at study baseline and at day 28 or after a minimum of 7 days of treatment, using a combination of an assessment using the Score for Neonatal Acute Physiology II tool and other protocol specified outcome criteria. The clinical endpoint was defined as the patient being alive, with negative bacterial cultures from a sterile body fluid, and a presumptive clinical cure. Clinical failure was defined as death, change in antibiotic therapy while on study drug, or lack of presumptive clinical cure. The addition of treatment directed against Gram-positive pathogens from a non-abdominal source was not considered to represent treatment failure. Using these criteria, 195/200 patients or 97.5 percent were considered to have achieved the clinical endpoint. Of the 195 patients included in the efficacy population, 192 (98.5 percent) were evaluated for efficacy. The overall efficacy success rate for the study was 84.4 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 78.5 to 89.2 percent).
Analysis of safety was a primary objective of the study. The following assessments were included in the study: Monitoring for adverse events, serious adverse events, and death; documentation of seizures; acute abdominal complications; development of resistant bacterial infection or candidiasis; treatment failure; physical examination; clinical laboratory values; cultures from sterile sites, and concomitant medications. There were 11 deaths in the study; all occurred in patients less than 32 weeks GA. The most common cause of death was multi-organ failure. None of the deaths were related to meropenem administration. The following adverse events occurred with a frequency in the study that differed from that seen in previous pediatric and adult studies: Convulsion (seizures), 5 percent, hyperbilirubinemia, 4.5 percent and vomiting, 2.5 percent. Study oversight included a safety committee and an independent data safety monitoring board.
The Division of Anti-Infective Products agreed that meropenem was well-tolerated in the pediatric population enrolled in the study. Of the 10 patients with seizures, 8 patients were adjudicated to have developed seizures possibly due to the study medication. Because cerebrospinal fluid was only evaluated in a limited number of patients with seizures, it is not possible to determine if the seizure threshold may have changed due to possible underlying meningitis and the administration of meropenem.
This study supports the use of meropenem in neonates and infants less than 91 days of age for complicated intra-abdominal infections. However, infants with complicated intra-abdominal infections are anticipated to have different physiological characteristics than patients with meningitis that may impact the PK of meropenem; as such, it may not be appropriate to apply the PK findings from this population to a patient population with meningitis. The Division recommended that the evaluation of meropenem in infants less than 91 days of age be limited to the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections at this time.
FDA's requested labeling changes, including dosing recommendations for the use of meropenem in neonates and infants less than 91 days of age for complicated intra-abdominal infections, are available on the FDA Web site at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of grant funds for the support of the efforts of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). FDA is announcing its intent to accept and consider a single-source application for the award of a grant to the Multiple Myeloma Service of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Institute. The goal of the cooperative agreement between CDER and the Multiple Myeloma Service of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Institute is to support the development of appropriate methodologies to conduct clinical trial design evaluation and determine extrapolation of findings from the general population to the U.S. Black population.
Important dates are as follows:
1. The application due date is July 20, 2015.
2. The anticipated start date is August 2015.
3. The opening date is May 18, 2015.
4. The expiration date is July 21, 2015.
Submit electronic applications to:
Dickran Kazandjian, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 2320, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-5272; or Vieda Hubbard, Division of Acquisition Support and Grants (HFA-500), Food and Drug
For more information on this funding opportunity announcement (FOA) and to obtain detailed requirements, please refer to the full FOA located at:
RFA-FD-15-029
93.103
Multiple Myeloma (MM) is mainly a disease of older adults with a median diagnosis age of 65 years and patients younger than 40 represent only 2 percent of diagnoses. In the United States, 20,000 new cases are diagnosed annually. Although the etiology of MM remains elusive, clinical features, observed racial disparity patterns of incidence, reported familial clustering, and younger incidence in patients of Black/African ancestry suggests a role for susceptibility genes. Novel therapies have revolutionized treatment of MM and much of current research is focused on identifying not only efficacious drugs but also on the most efficacious time to initiate treatment. MM is a spectrum of disease which is first manifested by its precursor state Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) which then evolves into smoldering myeloma and then finally symptomatic myeloma and therefore some paradigms of treatment initiation are evolving. Much of this work involves identifying the molecular aberrations, which classify patients' risks. However, this work has mostly been done on the population as a whole. Despite that MM in patients of Black ancestry clearly has a biologically different natural history; clinically Blacks are assessed using the same genetic approaches as the whole population. The proposed project will afford us the opportunity to identify and characterize MM in the Black population with much higher genetic and molecular resolution. It will answer questions such as whether Blacks have, in general, better survival because of the presence of more low risk genetic aberrations and whether these changes alter the effect of treatment drug. Our conclusions may have immense regulatory impact. For example, certain MM therapies may be indicated sooner in the treatment course in Blacks. Alternatively, some therapies may be found to have minimal efficacy and indication in Blacks with certain molecular subtypes. This proposal will be the first study to characterize the molecular subtypes of MM in Blacks in a systematic fashion, investigate the effect of these on novel therapy outcomes, and potentially have major impact on regulatory approvals of future therapies. Therefore, it is imperative to focus on this under-represented population and at least begin to understand the differences in MM pathophysiology, which may ultimately lead to improved outcomes.
The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Institute has established a cohort of Black/African ancestry patients diagnosed with MM. These patients have been previously enrolled onto clinical trials and bone marrow biopsy tissue samples are available along with peripheral blood samples all banked. Furthermore, there has been close monitoring of these patients and detailed clinical data already exist. This is crucial to the project. Memorial Sloan Kettering is uniquely positioned to provide FDA much required data both by their novel technical platform and also by their available unique patient cohort and biopsy samples. Finally, organized involvement among a number of Sloan Kettering/National Cancer Institute (NCI)/FDA working groups on issues related to endpoints in MM which provides the unique ability to collaboratively engage FDA, patients, academics, government and industry so that any important findings may distributed to the community will be required.
The research objective is to characterize the molecular subtypes of MM in patients of Black/African ancestry and investigate the effect of these
The following organization is eligible to apply: The Multiple Myeloma Service of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Institute. This is a sole source request for application because the Multiple Myeloma Service of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Institute is uniquely situated to support FDA's scientific mission of protecting and promoting the public health by initiating and facilitating research into demographic subpopulations of the United States. It has both the required patient population and the proprietary technical assays required to perform the proposed work.
It is anticipated that FDA/CDER will fund this Cooperative Agreement up to $172,000 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 and $106,000 in FY 2016 in support of this program project. It is anticipated that only one award will be made, not to exceed $278,000 (direct plus indirect) for total costs. Awards are contingent upon the availability of funds.
Two-year period of performance beginning on August 2015 or date of award.
Only one electronic application will be accepted. To submit an electronic application in response to this FOA, the applicant should first review the full announcement located at
• Step 1: Obtain a Dun and Bradstreet (DUNS) Number
• Step 2: Register With System for Award Management (SAM)
• Step 3: Obtain Username & Password on
• Step 4: Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) Authorization
• Step 5: Track AOR Status
• Step 6: Register With Electronic Research Administration (eRA) Commons
Steps 1 through 5, in detail, can be found at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of grant funds for the support of the National Center for Food Protection and Defense (NCFPD). The goal of the NCFPD is to provide well-established and high-level access to Food/Agriculture Sector Organizations and coordination of electronic collaborative tools; collaborative support from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). NCFPD also has past experience directly supporting the President's Food Safety Working Group Objectives to integrate the food safety system at all levels.
Important dates are as follows:
1. The application due date is July 15, 2015.
2. The anticipated start date is September 2015.
3. The opening date is May 15, 2015.
4. The expiration date is July 16, 2015.
Submit electronic applications to:
Nicola Areshenko, Food and Drug Administration, Office of Regulatory Affairs, 253-987-7921, email:
For more information on this funding opportunity announcement (FOA) and to obtain detailed requirements, please refer to the full FOA located at
RFA-FD-15-021
93.103
Food can become contaminated at many different points—on the farm, in processing or distribution facilities, during transit, at retail and food service establishments, and in the home. In recent years, FDA, in cooperation with other food regulatory and public health agencies, has done a great deal to prevent both intentional and unintentional contamination of food at each of these points. FDA has worked with other Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, and foreign counterpart food safety regulatory and public health agencies, as well as with law enforcement and intelligence-gathering agencies, and with industry, consumer groups, and academia, to strengthen the nation's food safety and food defense system across the entire distribution chain.
This cooperation has resulted in greater awareness of potential vulnerabilities, the creation of more effective prevention programs, new surveillance systems, and the ability to respond more quickly to outbreaks of foodborne illness. However, changes in consumer dietary patterns, changes in industry practices, changes in the U.S. population, an increasingly globalized food supply chain, and new pathogens and other contaminants pose challenges that are requiring us to adapt our current food protection strategies.
At the Federal level, a number of agencies are working together to coordinate their efforts and develop short- and long-term agendas to make food safer. As the Federal regulatory Agency responsible for most of the nation's food supply,
Current leveraging efforts have not been sufficient to ensure adequate oversight of the entire food supply chain. Food facilities are not uniformly inspected, data are not uniformly captured on a national basis, and the data that are collected are not systematically mined for intelligence. Neither FDA nor our regulatory or public health partners alone collect and analyze a sufficient number of surveillance samples per year to have confidence in to the ability to effectively identify potential areas of concern; combining the data from all public health partners would greatly enhance FDA's ability to detect potential problems. In addition, national response efforts are uneven. Throughout the years, numerous reports have concluded that FDA does not take full advantage of the inspectional and surveillance capabilities of our state, territorial, tribal and local regulatory and public health partners. This is due in large part to the varied standards and laws in each state as compared with the Federal system, as well as to the lack of interoperable data systems and legal impediments to sharing data among partners.
These combined factors present a challenge in managing and responding to signals of public health concern in the food supply. The currently decentralized U.S. public health and agriculture system results in a situation in which responsibility for surveillance, detection, investigation, response, and recovery to foodborne disease outbreaks is shared across Federal, State, territorial, tribal, and local government agencies.
Various levels of government are working to improve the nation's food safety and defense system. At all levels, there is a call for greater integration and coordination between the Federal agencies and the regulatory and public health partners involved in food safety. An integrated food safety system will allow FDA to meet the President's Food Safety Working Group recommendation that the Federal government “. . . prioritize crucial inspection and enforcement activity across the world,
To be fully successful, the national food safety system must be built with continuous input from FDA's regulatory and public health partners. Efforts shall facilitate information sharing and communication among all partners, and include infrastructure for a national electronic information-sharing mechanism. These actions will result in a national food safety system that identifies sources of risk throughout the system and reduces time to detect and respond to foodborne outbreaks. A public health-driven, collaborative, and leveraged approach to food safety activities and responsibilities will be reflected in improved public sector resource utilization at a national level, which provides additional capacity for ensuring a safe and secure food supply.
The Office of Regulatory Affairs, in coordination with FDA's Office of Foods, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, and Center for Veterinary Medicine, is soliciting a cooperative grant proposal to expedite program development to support critical federal-state collaboration necessary to plan and implement an integrated food safety system. The intent is to fund proposals for the continued development and operations of collaborative online tools involving a range of stakeholders for the purposes of: (1) Information sharing in the development of an integrated food safety system and (2) developing and implementing a sustainable model for continued collaborative communication and information sharing. This grant opportunity is limited to organizations receiving funding under the current Integrated Food Safety System Online Collaboration Development cooperative agreement. The NCFPD, a DHS Center of Excellence, has unique expertise and capacity found nowhere else. It is the host/creator of FoodSHIELD, an inter-governmental collaborative project supporting information sharing at the Federal, State, and local levels. NCFPD is uniquely qualified to provide: Well-established and high-level access to Food/Agriculture Sector Organizations and coordination of electronic collaborative tools; collaborative support from HHS, DHS, and the USDA. NCFPD also has past experience directly supporting the President's Food Safety Working Group Objectives to integrate the food safety system at all levels.
The following organizations/institutions are eligible to apply:
This cooperative agreement is only available to organizations receiving funding under the current Integrated Food Safety System Online Collaboration Development cooperative agreement. Competition is limited to NCFPD because it is uniquely qualified and has expertise and capacity found nowhere else. It is the host/creator of FoodSHIELD, an intergovernmental collaborative project supporting information sharing at the federal, state and local levels. NCFPD is uniquely qualified to provide: Well-established and high-level access to Food/Agriculture Sector Organizations and coordination of electronic collaborative tools; collaborative support from HHS, DHS, and the USDA. NCFPD also has past experience directly supporting the President's Food Safety Working Group Objectives to integrate the food safety system at all levels.
One award up to $680,000 for fiscal year 2015 with up to an additional 4 years funding up to $680,000 per year.
Up to 5 years.
Only electronic applications will be accepted. To submit an electronic application in response to this FOA, applicants should first review the full announcement located at
• Step 1: Obtain a Dun and Bradstreet (DUNS) Number
• Step 2: Register With System for Award Management (SAM)
• Step 3: Obtain Username & Password
• Step 4: Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) Authorization
• Step 5: Track AOR Status
• Step 6: Register With Electronic Research Administration (eRA) Commons
Steps 1 through 5, in detail, can be found at
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S. C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-4219-DR), dated May 14, 2015, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated May 14, 2015, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kari Suzann Cowie, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of West Virginia have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Boone, Cabell, Lincoln, Logan, Mingo, and Wayne Counties for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of West Virginia are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4217-DR), dated May 1, 2015, and related determinations.
Effective May 21, 2015.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Kentucky is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 1, 2015.
Carter County for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance). Floyd, Lincoln, Nicholas, Owen, Pike, Spencer, and Whitley Counties for Public Assistance.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-4210-DR), dated March 31, 2015, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this declared disaster is now March 3, 2015, through and including March 14, 2015.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4218-DR), dated May 12, 2015, and related determinations.
Effective date: May 12, 2015.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated May 12, 2015, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the Commonwealth of Kentucky resulting from a severe winter storm, snowstorm, flooding, landslides, and mudslides during the period of March 3-9, 2015, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the Commonwealth. You are further authorized to provide snow assistance under the Public Assistance program for a limited period of time during or proximate to the incident period. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Joe M. Girot, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the Commonwealth of Kentucky have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Anderson, Bell, Bourbon, Boyd, Breathitt, Bullitt, Butler, Calloway, Carter, Casey, Clay, Daviess, Elliott, Estill, Fleming, Floyd, Franklin, Fulton, Gallatin, Grant, Greenup, Hancock, Harrison, Hart, Jackson, Johnson, Knott, Knox, LaRue, Lawrence, Lee, Leslie, Letcher, Lewis, Magoffin, Marshall, Martin, Mason, Menifee, Metcalfe, Morgan, Nicholas, Ohio, Owen, Owsley, Perry, Pike, Powell, Robertson, Rockcastle, Rowan, Spencer, Trigg, Washington, Webster, Whitley, and Woodford Counties for Public Assistance.
Anderson, Boyd, Bourbon, Bullitt, Butler, Calloway, Carter, Daviess, Fleming, Franklin, Fulton, Gallatin, Grant, Hancock, Harrison, Hart, LaRue, Lewis, Marshall, Mason, Nicholas, Ohio, Owen, Robertson, Rowan, Spencer, Trigg, Washington, and Woodford Counties for snow assistance under the Public Assistance program for any continuous 48-hour period during or proximate the incident period.
All areas within the Commonwealth of Kentucky are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Connecticut (FEMA-4213-DR), dated April 8, 2015, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Connecticut is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of April 8, 2015.
New Haven County for Public Assistance.
New Haven County for snow assistance under the Public Assistance program for any continuous 48-hour period during or proximate the incident period.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-4220-DR), dated May 18, 2015, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated May 18, 2015, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of West Virginia resulting from severe storms, flooding, landslides, and mudslides during the period of April 8-11, 2015, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kari Suzann Cowie, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of West Virginia have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Braxton, Brooke, Doddridge, Gilmer, Jackson, Lewis, Marshall, Ohio, Pleasants, Ritchie, Tyler, and Wetzel Counties for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of West Virginia are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4215-DR), dated April 20, 2015, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of April 20, 2015.
Hart County for Public Assistance.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on an extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the National Flood Insurance Program Call Center and Agent Referral Enrollment Form.
Comments must be submitted on or before July 27, 2015.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Mary Jo Vrem, FloodSmart Program Manager, FEMA, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration at (202) 212-4727. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at facsimile number (202) 212-4701 or email address:
Under Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, Section 2(a)(6), 42 U.S.C. 4002(a)(6), Congress finds it is in the public interest for persons already living in flood prone areas to have an opportunity to purchase flood insurance and access to more adequate limits of coverage to be indemnified for their losses in the event of future flood disasters. To this end, FEMA established and carries out a National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which enables interested persons to purchase insurance against loss resulting from physical damage to or loss of real or personal property arising from any flood occurring in the United States. 42 U.S.C. 4011. In carrying out the NFIP, FEMA operates a call center in conjunction with the FloodSmart Web site (
Additionally, FEMA and the NFIP offer
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comment.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application for a 10-year incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The application addresses the potential for “take” of the federally endangered Morro shoulderband snail likely to result incidental to the construction of a single-family residence, barn, septic system, and improved residential access; management of an existing open space area; and implementation of a conservation strategy. We invite comments from the public on the application package, which includes a habitat conservation plan (HCP) for the Morro shoulderband snail.
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by June 29, 2015.
You may download a copy of the draft HCP and draft low-effect screening form and environmental action statement on the internet at
Julie M. Vanderwier, Senior Fish and Wildlife Biologist, at the above address or by phone at (805) 644-1766.
We have received an application from James and Sharon Kroll for an incidental take permit (ITP) pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The Morro shoulderband snail was listed as endangered on December 15, 1994 (59 FR 64613). Section 9 of the Act and its implementing regulations (16 U.S.C. 1531
James and Sharon Kroll (hereafter, the applicants) own a 5.08-acre residential suburban-zoned parcel legally described as County of San Luis Obispo Assessor Parcel Number 074-022-041 and located at 302/304 Madera Street in the western portion of Los Osos, an unincorporated community of San Luis Obispo County, California. The applicants have submitted a HCP in support of their application for an ITP to address take of Morro shoulderband snail likely to occur as the result of project activities that would occur within a 3.09-acre permit area within the larger parcel area. Proposed covered activities include direct impacts to up to 0.63 acre of predominantly nonnative grassland habitat associated with the construction and maintenance of a single-family residence, barn, septic system, and improved residential access; maintenance of a 0.93-acre open space area; and the restoration, monitoring, and management of 1.1 acres of habitat for Morro shoulderband snail.
The applicants propose to minimize and mitigate take of Morro shoulderband snail associated with the covered activities by fully implementing the HCP. The following minimization measures would be implemented: (1) Development and delivery of an environmental training program for Morro shoulderband snail to all personnel working onsite, (2) pre-construction and concurrent construction monitoring surveys for Morro shoulderband snail, (3) capture and moving out of harm's way all identified individuals of any life stage of Morro shoulderband snail to a Service-approved receptor site by an individual in possession of a current valid recovery permit for the species, (4) use of temporary construction fencing to prevent accidental egress into mitigation areas; and (5) installation of permanent fencing to separate use areas from conservation areas. To mitigate for unavoidable take of Morro shoulderband snail, the applicants would conserve and manage 1.1 acres of habitat for Morro shoulderband snail. This 1.1-acre area would be recorded under a conservation easement with the County of San Luis Obispo and restored to native coastal dune scrub following control of non-native grasses and removal of orchard plantings. The applicants have committed to fund up to $33,368 to ensure implementation of all minimization, mitigation, and reporting requirements identified in the HCP.
In the proposed HCP, the applicants consider two alternatives to the proposed action: “No Action” and “Alternate Project Design.” Under the “No Action” alternative, the Service would not issue an ITP, and the legal construction of a single-family residence and barn would not occur. Absent the ITP, there would be no conservation and restoration of habitat for the Morro shoulderband snail that would, in concert with nearby habitat, provide a benefit to the species. Since the property is privately owned, there are ongoing economic considerations associated with continued ownership absent its ability to realize its intended use upon purchase (
Under the “Alternate Project Design” alternative, the residence and barn would be located elsewhere within the parcel. No other configuration would result in a substantial increase in the net benefit to the species or better achieve the applicants' needs. As such, the Alternate Project Design alternative is also rejected.
We have determined the applicants' proposal will have a minor or negligible effect on the Morro shoulderband snail, and the HCP qualifies for processing as a low-effect plan consistent with our Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook (November 1996). Three criteria form the basis for our determination: (1) the proposed project as described in the HCP would result in minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, and/or candidate species and their habitats; (2) implementation of the HCP would result in minor negligible effects on other environmental values or resources; and (3) HCP impacts, considered together with those of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in cumulatively significant effects. It is our preliminary determination that HCP approval and ITP issuance qualify for categorical exclusion under the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321
We will evaluate the permit application, including the HCP and comments we receive, to determine whether it meets the requirements of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. We will also evaluate whether issuance of the ITP would comply with section 7(a)(2) of the Act by conducting an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
We request comments from the public regarding our preliminary determination that the applicants' proposal will have a minor or negligible effect on the Morro shoulderband snail and that the plan qualifies as a low-effect HCP. We will evaluate the comments we receive and make a final determination regarding whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. We will incorporate the results of our intra-Service consultation, in combination with the above findings, in our final analysis to determine whether to issue the ITP. If all of our requirements are met, we will issue the ITP to the applicants. Permit issuance would not occur less than 30 days from the date of this notice.
If you wish to comment on the permit application, HCP, and associated documents, you may submit comments by any one of the methods provided in
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 view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act and the NEPA public involvement regulations (40 CFR 1500.1(b), 1500.2(d), and 1506.6).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for public comments.
Under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on an incidental take permit application for take of the federally listed American burying beetle resulting from activities associated with the geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning of oil and gas well field infrastructure within Oklahoma. If approved, the permit would be issued under the approved
To ensure consideration, written comments must be received on or before June 29, 2015.
You may obtain copies of all documents and submit comments on the applicant's ITP application by one of the following methods. Please refer to the permit number when requesting documents or submitting comments.
○
○
Marty Tuegel, Branch Chief, by U.S. mail at Environmental Review, P.O. Box 1306, Room 6034, Albuquerque, NM 87103; or by telephone at 505-248-6651.
Under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
We invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies, and the public to comment on the following application under the ICP, for incidental take of the federally listed ABB. Please refer to the appropriate permit number (TE-54185B) when requesting application documents and when submitting comments. Documents and other information the applicants have submitted with this application are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).
Applicant requests a new permit for gas upstream and midstream production, including geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning of gas well field infrastructure, as well as construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, and reclamation of gas gathering, transmission, and distribution pipeline infrastructure within Oklahoma.
Written comments we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. 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 request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will not consider anonymous comments. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians, Office of Trust Review & Audit, Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Trust Review & Audit, Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians, Department of the Interior announces the proposed collection of information and seeks public comments on the provisions thereof.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by
Send your written comments to Nolan Solomon, Office of
To request a copy of the information collection request, any explanatory information and related forms, see the contact information provided in the
This notice is for collection of information and public comment.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Under 25 CFR 1000.355, the Secretary's designated representative will conduct trust evaluations for each self-governance tribe that has an annual funding agreement. The end result is the issuance of a report, which is required by 25 CFR 1000.365. Currently, Department of the Interior, Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians, Office of Trust Review & Audit (OTRA), conducts an on-site review of trust operations where a tribe has compacted a trust program. During that review, under current methodology, interviews are conducted and documents are requested on site. Information collected is then brought back to the Albuquerque office and analyzed. A draft report is written and provided to the tribe for comment where applicable, comments received back are incorporated into the report, and a final report is issued to the tribe. The purpose of this notice is to inform tribes and solicit comment that the method of collecting the information to conduct that annual evaluation is changing to an electronic method. Each year, tribes that compact trust programs will be asked to conduct an online assessment where they respond to questions, upload documentation, and provide a certification upon completion that answers provided are true and complete to the best of their knowledge. The information received will then be analyzed by OTRA, and a draft and or a final report will be issued. Pending the responses provided, additional information may be requested. An on-site inspection will still occur, however, it may be less often than annually.
This notice of proposed information collection is being published by the Office of Trust Review & Audit, Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians, Department of the Interior,
(2) Annual reporting and recordkeeping burden:
(3) Description of the need and use of the information: The need and use of the information is to comply with 25 CFR 1000.355. The CFR requires an annual review of each Tribe that has an annual funding agreement in place. Information electronically received will be used to conduct an initial review of all these compacted tribes on an annual basis. After the information is received and analyzed, an on-site review will occur as needed, based on risk. When an on-site review does occur, it will involve less time on-site than occurs with the current on-site reviews, as much of the documentation will have been submitted electronically. We are converting from collecting the information manually to collecting the information electronically as it is more efficient.
The Departments invite comments on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agencies, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agencies' estimate of the burden of the collection of information and the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
“Burden” means the total time, effort, and financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install, and use technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, and to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
All written comments, with names and addresses, will be available for public inspection. If you wish us to withhold your personal information, you must prominently state at the beginning of your comment what personal information you want us to withhold. We will honor your request to the extent allowable by law. If you wish to view any comments received, you may do so by scheduling an appointment with the Office of Trust Review & Audit, Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians, by calling (505) 816-1257. A valid picture identification is required for entry into the Department of the Interior.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
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 Office of Management and Budget control number.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Alaska State Office is issuing a call for nominations and comments on tracts for the upcoming 2015 National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A) Oil and Gas Lease Sale. A map of the NPR-A showing areas available for leasing is online at
BLM Alaska must receive all nominations and comments on these tracts for consideration on or before June 29, 2015.
Mail nominations and/or comments to: State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West 7th Ave., Mailstop 13; Anchorage, AK 99513-7504. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your nominations and/or 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.
Wayne Svejnoha, BLM Alaska Energy and Minerals Branch Chief, 907-271-4407. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The BLM is issuing a call for nominations and comments on tracts for the upcoming 2015 NPR-A Oil and Gas Lease Sale, pursuant to 43 CFR 3131.2. When describing tracts nominated for leasing or providing comments, please use the NPR-A maps, legal descriptions of the tracts, and additional information available through the BLM Alaska Web site at
On the basis of the record
The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), instituted this review on May 1, 2014 (79 FR 24749) and determined on August 4, 2014 that it would conduct a full review (79 FR 47478, August 13, 2014). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's review and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determination in this review on May 20, 2015. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4534 (May 2015), entitled
By order of the Commission.
On May 12, 2015, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa in the lawsuit entitled
The Consent Decree resolves the United States' claims against Twin Counties Dairy, LLC, for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251,
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $2.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
On May 21, 2015, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois in the lawsuit entitled
The proposed Consent Decree would resolve Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) claims and certain other related claims concerning Site 14 (“Site 14” or “the Site”) of the Miscellaneous Areas Operable Unit at the Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Superfund Site near Marion, Illinois. The total response costs for Site 14 are roughly $5.8 million, including about $3.66 million spent by Illinois Tool Works (“ITW”) and about $2.15 million spent by the U.S. Department of the Interior (“DOI”) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). The proposed settlement would require ITW to pay an additional $78,617, including $62,739 being paid into the DOI Central Hazardous Materials Fund and $15,878 being paid into the EPA Superfund. No prior payments have been made on account of the alleged CERCLA liability of the Department of the Army (“Army”) and DOI (the “Settling Federal Agencies”). Under this settlement, the United States would pay $1,677,549 on behalf of the Settling Federal Agencies, including $1,338,745 being paid into the DOI Central Hazardous Materials Fund and $338,804 being paid into the EPA Superfund.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail:
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $8.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than June 8, 2015.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than June 8, 2015.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5428, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
On November 3, 2014, the Department issued a Notice of Termination of Investigation applicable to workers and former workers of Avery Dennison, Retail Branding and Information Solutions (RBIS) Division, Lenoir, North Carolina (subject firm). The subject firm is engaged in the production of printed fabric labels, heat transfer ribbon, woven edge tape and coated inks. Workers at the subject firm are not separately identifiable by product line.
Workers of the subject firm, including on-site leased workers of Adecco, are eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance under TA-W-82,139 (which expires on December 5, 2014). The afore-mentioned certification excludes workers separated after December 5, 2014 and excludes on-site leased workers of Manpower and Zero Chaos.
Following the issuance of the afore-mentioned Notice, the Department determined that the termination of investigation was issued error and conducted a reconsideration investigation.
Section 222(a)(1) has been met because a significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated.
Section 222(a)(2)(B) has been met because the employment decline is related to the shift in production of like or directly competitive articles to foreign countries that are a party to a free trade agreement with the United States.
In accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 26 U.S.C. 2813, the Department herein presents the results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance (ATAA) for older workers.
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act are satisfied if the following criteria are met:
(I) Whether a significant number of workers in the workers' firm are 50 years of age or older;
(II) Whether the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that are not easily transferable; and
(III) The competitive conditions within the workers' industry (
Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I) has been met because a significant number of workers in the workers' firm are 50 years of age or older. Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii)(II) has been met because the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that are not easily transferrable. Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii)(III) has been met because conditions within the workers' industry are adverse.
After careful review of the information obtained during the reconsideration investigation, I determine that workers of Avery Dennison, Retail Branding and Information Solutions (RBIS) Division, including on-site leased workers, Lenoir, North Carolina, meet the worker group certification criteria under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a). In accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273, I make the following certification:
All workers of Avery Dennison, Retail Branding and Information Solutions (RBIS) Division, including on-site leased workers of Adecco, Lenoir, North Carolina (TA-W-85,578), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after December 6, 2014 through two years from the date of this certification, and all leased workers of Manpower and Zero Chaos working on-site at Avery Dennison, Retail Branding and Information Solutions (RBIS)
This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on May 22, 2015.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on March 18, 2015, applicable to workers from A Schulman, Inc., Stryker, Ohio. The Department's Notice of Determination was published in the
At the request of a State Workforce Official, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged in the production of plastic colorants.
The investigation confirmed that workers' wages were reported under Ferro Corp., FEIN 34-0217820. Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include workers whose wages were reported under Ferro Corp., FEIN 34-0217820.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-85,844 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of A Schulman, Inc., including workers whose wages were reported under Ferro Corp., Stryker, Ohio, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after February 19, 2014 through March 18, 2017, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
On December 9, 2014, the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance applicable to workers and former workers of Pixel Playground, Inc., Woodland Hills, California (subject firm). The Department's Notice was published in the
In an application dated January 26, 2015, a former worker via legal counsel requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The request for reconsideration alleges that workers at the subject firm are eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) under Section 222(b) of the Trade Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(b).
A careful review of administrative record and additional investigation confirmed the following:
Section 222(b)(1) has been met because a significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated.
Section 222(b)(2) has been met because Pixel Playground Inc., Woodland Hills, California is a Supplier to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a), and such supply is related to the service that was the basis for such certification.
Section 222(b)(3)(B) has been met because the loss of business by Pixel Playground Inc., Woodland Hills, California with the firm that employed a certified worker group contributed importantly to worker separations at Pixel Playground Inc., Woodland Hills, California.
After careful review, I determine that workers and former workers of the subject firm, who are engaged in employment related to the supply of digital augmentation services, meet the worker group certification criteria under Section 222(b) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(b). In accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273, I make the following certification:
All workers of Pixel Playground Inc., Woodland Hills, California, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after April 23, 2012 through two years from the date of this certification, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on the date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA-W) number and alternative trade adjustment assistance (ATAA) by (TA-W) number issued during the period of
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.
I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied:
A. a significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially
B. the sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and
C. increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or
II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied:
A. a significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. there has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and
C. One of the following must be satisfied:
1. the country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States;
2. the country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles to a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or
3. there has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision.
Also, in order for an affirmative determination to be made for secondarily affected workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1) significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) the workers' firm (or subdivision) is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits and such supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for such certification; and
(3) either—
(A) the workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied for the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B) a loss or business by the workers' firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met.
1. Whether a significant number of workers in the workers' firm are 50 years of age or older.
2. Whether the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that are not easily transferable.
3. The competitive conditions within the workers' industry (
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) have not been met for the reasons specified.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified.
Because the workers of the firm are not eligible to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A.) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A.) (employment decline) have not been met.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met.
The workers' firm does not produce an article as required for certification under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
After notice of the petitions was published in the
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioning groups of workers are covered by active certifications. Consequently, further investigation in these cases would serve no purpose since the petitioning group of workers cannot be covered by more than one certification at a time.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the Department issued a negative determination on petitions related to the relevant investigation period applicable to the same worker group. The duplicative petitions did not present new information or a change in circumstances that would result in a reversal of the Department's previous negative determination, and therefore, further investigation would duplicate efforts and serve no purpose.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on March 2, 2015, applicable to workers of Hewlett-Packard Co., HP Enterprise Group, Americas Supply Chain Houston Manufacturing, including on-site leased workers from Advantage Technical Resourcing, Bucher and Christian Consulting, Inc., CBSI LLC, Manpower, National Employment Service, Pinnacle Technical Resources, Inc., and Staff Management, Houston, Texas. The workers were engaged in activities related to the production of server cabinets and parts.
At the request of a state workforce official to clarify the worker group, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The company reports that the leased worker agency, Staff Management, is a subsidiary of Seaton, LLC.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include workers leased from Staff Management (a subsidiary of Seaton, LLC) working on-site at the Houston, Texas location of Hewlett-Packard Co., HP Enterprise Group, Americas Supply Chain Houston Manufacturing.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-85,726 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of Hewlett-Packard Co., HP Enterprise Group, Americas Supply Chain Houston Manufacturing, including on-site leased workers from Advantage Technical Resourcing, Bucher and Christian Consulting, Inc., CBSI LLC, Manpower, National Employment Service, Pinnacle Technical Resources, Inc., and Staff Management (a subsidiary of Seaton, LLC), Houston, Texas, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after December 15, 2013 through March 2, 2017, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on the date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
On March 10, 2015, the Department of Labor issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of Levi Strauss and Company, Eugene, Oregon. The notice was published in the
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), reconsideration may be granted under the following circumstances:
(1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered that the determination complained of was erroneous;
(2) If it appears that the determination complained of was based on a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
(3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on findings that the worker separations at Levi Strauss & Co., Eugene, Oregon are not attributable to increased imports of articles or a shift in production of articles to a foreign country. The investigation also confirmed that the subject firm is not a Supplier or Downstream Producer.
The request for reconsideration asserts that the workers perform
Information obtained during the investigation confirmed that Levi Strauss & Co. does not produce articles within the United States. The investigation confirmed that all production of articles for the Levi Strauss & Co. brand is done by another firm not covered under the definition of a “firm” in 29 CFR 90.2.
Therefore, after careful review of the request for reconsideration, the Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.
After careful review, I determine that the requirements of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272, have not been met and, therefore, deny the petition for group eligibility of Levi Strauss & Company, Eugene, Oregon, to apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273.
Notice.
On May 29, 2015, the Department of Labor (DOL) will submit the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “YouthBuild Reporting System,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before June 29, 2015.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the YouthBuild Reporting System information collection. YouthBuild grantees collect and report selected standardized information pertaining to customers in YouthBuild programs for general program oversight, evaluation, and performance assessment purposes. The ETA provides all grantees with a YouthBuild management information system to use for collecting participant data and for preparing and submitting the required quarterly reports. YouthBuild Transfer Act section 2(c)(4)(L) and Workforce Investment Act sections 185(d) and 189(d) authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2015. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Request for public comments.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). This program helps to assure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is soliciting comments on the information collection for Underground Retorts.
All comments must be received on or before July 27, 2015.
Comments concerning the information collection requirements of this notice may be sent by any of the methods listed below.
•
•
•
Sheila McConnell, Acting Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
Title 30 CFR 57.22401 sets forth the safety requirements for using a retort to extract oil from shale in underground metal and nonmetal I-A and I-B mines (those that operate in a combustible ore and either liberate methane or have the potential to liberate methane based on the history of the mine or the geological area in which the mine is located). At present, this applies only to underground oil shale mines. The standard requires that prior to ignition of underground retorts; mine operators must submit a written ignition operation plan to the appropriate MSHA District Manager which contains site-specific safeguards and safety procedures for the underground areas of the mine which are affected by the retorts.
MSHA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to Underground Retorts. MSHA is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the MSHA's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The information collection request will be available on MSHA's Web site and on
The public may also examine publicly available documents at MSHA, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, Arlington, VA. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 21st floor.
Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the person listed in the
This request for collection of information contains provisions for Underground Retorts. MSHA has updated the data in respect to the number of respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden costs supporting this information collection request.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Request for public comments.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
All comments must be received on or before July 27, 2015.
Comments concerning the information collection requirements of this notice may be sent by any of the methods listed below.
•
•
•
Sheila McConnell, Acting Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
Each underground coal mine has an emergency response plan (ERP) and refuge alternative(s) (RA) that protect miners when escape from a mine during a mine emergency is not possible by providing secure spaces with isolated atmospheres that create life-sustaining environments.
Title 30 CFR 75.1506 requires mine operators to provide refuge alternatives.
Section 75.1507 requires the development and implementation of emergency response plans. It requires that the ERP provide detailed information about the RAs used in the mine. This information assists miners, supervisors, emergency responders, and MSHA in assuring that all essential preparations are made and required materials are readily available and in working order. A mine operator may notify the District Manager and update the existing ERP if there is a need to locate a RA in a different location than the one identified in the ERP for that mine (as required by section 75.1506(c)(2)).
Section 75.1508 requires the mine operator to certify that persons assigned to examine, maintain, and repair RAs and components are trained for those tasks. Training certifications assist MSHA in determining that persons received the required training. The training certification for persons assigned to examine RAs is integrated into existing requirements for preshift examinations of the mine under section 75.360 (OMB 1219-0088). The training certification for persons assigned to maintain and repair RAs is included in this package under section 75.1508(a).
Section 75.1508(b) requires a record of any maintenance and repair performed on a refuge alternative. This record assists MSHA in identifying design flaws or other weaknesses in the refuge alternative or its components that could adversely impact the safety of miners.
MSHA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to Refuge Alternatives for Underground Coal Mines. MSHA is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of MSHA's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The information collection request will be available on MSHA's Web site and on
The public may also examine publicly available documents at MSHA, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, Arlington, VA. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 21st floor.
Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the person listed in the
This request for collection of information contains provisions for Refuge Alternatives for Underground Coal Mines. MSHA has updated the data with respect to the number of respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden costs supporting this information collection request.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Request for public comments.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). This
All comments must be received on or before July 27, 2015.
Comments concerning the information collection requirements of this notice may be sent by any of the methods listed below.
•
•
•
Sheila McConnell, Acting Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
Methane is a flammable gas found in underground mines in the United States. Although methane is often associated with underground coal mines, it also occurs in some metal and nonmetal mines. Underground metal and Nonmetal mines are categorized according to the potential to liberate methane (30 CFR 57.22003—Mine category or subcategory). Methane is a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas, and it tends to rise to the roof of a mine because it is lighter than air. Although methane itself is nontoxic, its presence reduces the oxygen content by dilution when mixed with air and, consequently, can act as an asphyxiant when present in large quantities.
Methane may enter the mining environment from a variety of sources including fractures, faults, or shear zones overlying or underlying the strata that surround the ore body, or from the ore body itself. It may occur as an occluded gas within the ore body. Methane mixed with air is explosive in the range of 5 to 15 percent, provided that 12 percent or more oxygen is present. The presence of dust containing volatile matter in the mine atmosphere may further enhance the explosion potential of methane in a mine. Section 103(i) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), as amended, requires additional inspections be conducted at mines depending on the amount of methane liberated from a mine.
Title 30 CFR 57.22004(c) requires operators of underground metal and nonmetal mines mines to notify MSHA as soon as possible if any of the following events occur: (a) There is an outburst that results in 0.25 percent or more methane in the mine atmosphere, (b) there is a blowout that results in 0.25 percent or more methane in the mine atmosphere, (c) there is an ignition of methane, or (d) air sample results indicate 0.25 percent or more methane in the mine atmosphere of a I-B, I-C, II-B, V-B, or Category VI mine. Under sections 57.22239 and 57.22231, if methane reaches 2.0 percent in a Category IV mine or if methane reaches 0.25 percent in the mine atmosphere of a Subcategory I-B, II-B, V-B, or VI mine, MSHA shall be notified immediately. Although the standards do not specify how MSHA is to be notified, MSHA anticipates that the notifications would be made by telephone.
Title 30 CFR 57.22229 and 57.22230 require that the mine atmosphere be tested for methane and/or carbon dioxide at least once every seven days by a competent person or atmospheric monitoring system or a combination of both. Section 57.2229 applies to underground metal and nonmetal mines mines categorized as I-A, III, and V-A mines where the atmosphere is tested for both methane and carbon dioxide. Section 57.22230 applies to underground metal and nonmetal mines mines categorized as II-A mines where the atmosphere is tested for methane. Where examinations disclose hazardous conditions, affected miners must be informed. Title 30 CFR 57.22229(d) and 57.22230(c) require that the person performing the tests certify by signature and date that the tests have been conducted. Certifications of examinations shall be kept for at least one year and made available to authorized representatives of the Secretary of Labor.
MSHA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to Notification of Methane Detected in Underground Metal and Nonmetal Mine Atmospheres. MSHA is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of MSHA's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
The information collection request will be available on MSHA's Web site and on
The public may also examine publicly available documents at MSHA, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, Arlington, VA. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 21st floor.
Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the person listed in the
This request for collection of information contains provisions for Notification of Methane Detected in Underground Metal and Nonmetal Mine Atmospheres. MSHA has updated the data with respect to the number of respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden costs supporting this information collection request.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS), Labor.
Notice of ACVETEO Charter Renewal.
In accordance with section 4110 of Title 38, U.S. Code, and the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and its implementing regulations issued by the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), the Secretary of Labor is renewing the charter for the Advisory Committee on Veterans' Employment, Training, and Employer Outreach (ACVETEO).
The ACVETEO's responsibilities are to: (a) Assess employment and training needs of veterans and their integration into the workforce; (b) determine the extent to which the programs and activities of the Department of Labor (DOL) are meeting such needs; (c) assist the Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training (ASVET) in conducting outreach to employers with respect to the training and skills of veterans and the advantages afforded employers by hiring veterans; (d) make recommendations to the Secretary of Labor, through the ASVET, with respect to outreach activities and the employment and training needs of veterans; and (e) carry out such other activities deemed necessary to making required reports and recommendations under section 4110(f) of Title 38, U.S. Code.
Per section 4110(c)(1) of Title 38, U.S. Code, the Secretary of Labor shall appoint at least twelve, but no more than sixteen, individuals to serve as Special Government Employees of the ACVETEO as follows: Seven individuals, one each from the following organizations: (i) The Society for Human Resource Management; (ii) the Business Roundtable; (iii) the National Association of State Workforce Agencies; (iv) the United States Chamber of Commerce; (v) the National Federation of Independent Business; (vi) a nationally recognized labor union or organization; and (vii) the National Governors' Association. The Secretary shall appoint not more than five individuals nominated by veterans' service organizations that have a national employment program and not more than five individuals who are recognized authorities in the fields of business, employment, training, rehabilitation, or labor and who are not employees of DOL. Members will serve as Special Government Employees.
The ACVETEO will function in compliance with the provisions of the FACA, and its charter will be filed under the FACA. For more information, contact Timothy A. Green, Designated Federal Official, ACVETEO, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-4700.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice at least once monthly of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when no longer needed for current Government business. They authorize agencies to preserve records of continuing value in the National Archives of the United States and to destroy, after a specified period, records lacking administrative, legal, research, or other value. NARA publishes notice for records schedules in which agencies propose to destroy records not previously authorized for disposal or reduce the retention period of records already authorized for disposal. NARA invites public comments on such records schedules, as required by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a).
NARA must receive requests for copies in writing by June 29, 2015. Once NARA completes appraisal of the records, we will send you a copy of the schedule you requested. We usually prepare appraisal memoranda that contain additional information concerning the records covered by a proposed schedule. You may also request these. If you do, we will also provide them once we have completed the appraisal. You have 30 days after we send these requested documents in which to submit comments.
You may request a copy of any records schedule identified in this notice by contacting Records Management Services (ACNR) using one of the following means:
You must cite the control number, which appears in parentheses after the name of the agency which submitted the schedule, and a mailing address. If you would like an appraisal report, please include that in your request.
Margaret Hawkins, Director, by mail at Records Management Services (ACNR); National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road; College Park, MD 20740-6001, by phone at 301-837-1799, or by email at
Each year, Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA's approval. These schedules provide for timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the disposal of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.
The schedules listed in this notice are media neutral unless otherwise specified. An item in a schedule is media neutral when an agency may apply the disposition instructions to records regardless of the medium in which it has created or maintains the records. Items included in schedules submitted to NARA on or after December 17, 2007, are media neutral unless the item is limited to a specific medium. (See 36 CFR 1225.12(e).)
No agencies may destroy Federal records without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. The Archivist grants this approval only after a thorough consideration of the records' administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private people directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not the records have historical or other value.
In addition to identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or that the schedule has agency-wide applicability (in the case of schedules that cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency), provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction), and includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it too includes information about the records. You may request additional information about the disposition process at the addresses above.
1. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (DAA-AU-2015-0013, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used to track soldier career development training.
2. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (DAA-AU-2015-0023, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system that contains soldier assignment data.
3. Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense (DAA-0330-2015-0005, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Records relating to cybersecurity, including assessments, incident response and master files of an electronic information system containing incident reports.
4. Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense (DAA-0330-2015-0006, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Records relating to sexual assault case files including victim reporting preference statements and forensic examination reports.
5. Department of Defense, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DAA-0374-2014-0003, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Audit records including findings and recommendations, progress reports and related correspondence.
6. Department of Defense, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DAA-0374-2014-0006, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Agency-wide administrative policy letters.
7. Department of Defense, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DAA-0374-2014-0029, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Continuity of operations plans and planning records.
8. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DAA-0567-2015-0002, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Master files of an electronic information system maintaining detainee health records.
9. Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DAA-0059-2014-0020, 5 items, 5 temporary items). Records of the Office of Domestic Facilities Protection used to manage operational security and security support programs.
10. Court Services and Offenders Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, Pretrial Services Agency (DAA-0562-2013-0018, 16 items, 16 temporary items). Drug testing records related to defendant and offender results, sample handling and testing, and instrument calibration and maintenance.
11. Environmental Protection Agency, Agency-wide (DAA-0412-2013-0018, 5 items, 4 temporary items). Permit records, including administrative records maintained separately from the permit files; routine permits; dredging and fill permits; and financial and state assurance documents. Proposed for permanent retention are historically significant permits.
12. Peace Corps, Director's Office (DAA-0490-2013-0003, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Records of the Office of Victim Advocacy related to support services for those who have been the victim of a crime.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Request for comment.
NCUA intends to submit a collection of information related to the Notice of Change of Officials and Senior Executive Officers Forms to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Comments will be accepted until June 29, 2015.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the National Credit Union Administration, 3133-0121, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., #10102, Washington, DC 20503,
Requests for additional information, a copy of the information collection request, or a copy of submitted comments should be directed to Jessica Khouri at the National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428, or at
NCUA is requesting an extension of the previously approved collection for 3133-0121. The Federal Credit Union (FCU) Act specifically requires all federally insured credit unions to notify NCUA at least 30 days prior to a change in official or senior executive officer if that credit union is newly chartered or in troubled condition. During that 30-day period, NCUA can disapprove the credit union's request. Since the last submission for 3133-0121, NCUA amended 12 CFR 701.14 to redefine “troubled condition” in relation to federally insured state chartered credit unions (FISCUs). The revised rule redefines a FISCU in “troubled condition” to be not only when its state supervisory authority (SSA) assigns it a “4” or “5” composite code rating, but
The FCU Act requires notice from the insured credit union to include certain personal information about the individual to determine the individual's fitness for the position. NCUA regulation at 12 CFR 701.14 implements Section 212. Section 701.14 requires that within 10 calendar days of receiving the notice, the Regional Director must inform the credit union either that the notice is complete or that additional specified information is required to be submitted within 30 calendar days. Additionally, this section requires the Regional Director or Director of Office of National Examinations and Supervision to issue a written decision of approval or disapproval to the individual and the credit union within 30 calendar days of receipt of the notice. Otherwise, the individual is approved. NCUA's regulation at 12 CFR 741.205 requires federally insured state-chartered credit unions to follow section 701.14.
NCUA's regulations at 12 CFR part 747 (subpart J) sets forth the rights an individual or a credit union may exercise and procedures to be followed in responding to a notice of disapproval by NCUA.
NCUA's forms 4063 and 4063a provide a uniform method for credit unions and individuals to submit information to NCUA regarding changes to officials and senior executive officers. NCUA uses the information to determine an individual's fitness for the position.
In the
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.
NCUA requests that you send your comments on the information collection requirements outlined by 12 CFR 701.14 to the locations listed in the addresses section. Your comments should address: (a) The necessity of the information collection for the proper performance of NCUA, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways we could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents such as through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. It is NCUA's policy to make all comments available to the public for review.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Request for Comment.
National Credit Union Administration is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
This information collection is published to obtain comments from the public. The information collection relates to the requirements under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Flood Acts),
Comments will be accepted until June 29, 2015.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments to:
(i) Desk Officer for the National Credit Union Administration, 3133-0143, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., #10102, Washington, DC 20503,
(ii) Jessica Khouri, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428, Fax No. 703-837-2861,
Requests for additional information, a copy of the information collection request, or a copy of submitted comments should be directed to Jessica Khouri by mail at the National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428, by fax at Fax No. 703-837-2861, or by email at
NCUA is reinstating a previously approved collection of information for 3133-0143 (12 CFR part 760, Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards). The Flood Acts made the purchase of flood insurance mandatory in connection with loans made by
Specifically, a federally insured credit union is required to:
• Retain a completed copy of the Standard Flood Hazard Determination Form developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This form is used by lenders, such as credit unions, to document their determination of whether a building or mobile home offered as collateral security for a loan is or will be located in a special flood hazard area in which flood insurance is available.
• Notify a borrower and the servicer when a building or mobile home offered as collateral security for a loan is determined to be in a special flood hazard area and notify them whether flood insurance is available.
• Notify a borrower and the servicer if the secured property becomes newly located in a special flood hazard area due to remapping of flood hazard areas by FEMA, which would obligate the borrower to obtain flood insurance. In addition, the credit union or its servicer must purchase flood insurance on the borrower's behalf if the borrower, after notification, fails to obtain mandated flood insurance due to remapping, and charge the borrower for the cost.
• Notify a borrower whose mandated flood insurance policy has expired or if the policy covers an amount less than the required amount, of the borrower's obligation to obtain a flood insurance policy for the required amount. If the borrower fails to obtain a flood insurance policy for the required amount following this notification, the credit union or its servicer must purchase flood insurance on the borrower's behalf and charge the borrower for the cost.
• Notify FEMA of the identity of, and any change in, the servicer of a loan secured by a building or mobile home located or to be located in a special flood hazard area.
On August 12, 2013, NCUA published a notice in the
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. NCUA requests that you send your comments on this collection to the locations listed in the addresses section. Your comments should address: (a) The necessity of the information collection for the proper performance of NCUA, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways we could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents such as the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. It is NCUA's policy to make all comments available to the public for review.
Borrowers use the disclosed information to make valid purchase decisions. NCUA uses the maintained records to verify compliance with the Flood Acts and part 760.
The following are the specific underlying ICRs that comprise the total:
ICR related to required recordkeeping of the Standard Flood Hazard Determination Form.
ICRs related to disclosures:
Therefore, NCUA estimates that the total burden hours for this collection of information is:
45,360 recordkeeping hours.
56,784 disclosure hours.
102,144 total burden hours.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft environmental impact statement; request for comment; reopening of comment period.
On June 30, 2009, the Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) submitted an application for combined licenses (COL) for two nuclear power reactors, Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, at the Turkey Point site near Homestead, Florida (Application). On March 5, 2015, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Jacksonville District, issued a
The comment period for the document published on March 5, 2015 (80 FR 12043), has been reopened. Comments should be filed no later than July 17, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Alicia Williamson, telephone: 301-415-1878; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2009-0337 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2009-0337 in the subject line of your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
By letter dated June 30, 2009, FPL submitted the application for COLs for Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, in which it proposed to construct and operate two new nuclear power units at its Turkey Point site near Homestead, Florida. Among other items, the application included an environmental report (ER), which documented FPL's assessment of
The NRC's regulations set a minimum public comment period of 45 days for a draft environmental impact statement, and contemplate reasonable requests for a 15-day extension, if practicable (10 CFR 51.73). In the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning an amendment to Priority Mail Contract 80 negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On May 21, 2015, the Postal Service filed notice that it has agreed to an Amendment to the existing Priority Mail Contract 80 negotiated service agreement (Existing Agreement) approved in this docket.
The Postal Service also filed the unredacted Amendment under seal. The Postal Service seeks to incorporate by reference the Application for Non-Public Treatment originally filed in this docket for the protection of information that it has filed under seal. Notice at 1. The Postal Service states that the Amendment does not materially affect cost coverage; therefore, the supporting financial documentation and certification originally filed in this docket remain applicable.
The Amendment revises section I.C. of the Existing Agreement and requires the customer to submit a written list of permit numbers used for shipment of packages and only reported permit numbers will count toward the volume commitment.
The Postal Service intends for the Amendment to become effective one business day after the date that the Commission completes its review of the Notice.
The Commission invites comments on whether the changes presented in the Postal Service's Notice are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than May 29, 2015. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Cassie D'Souza to represent the interests of the general public (Public Representative) in this docket.
1. The Commission reopens Docket No. CP2014-38 for consideration of matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Cassie D'Souza to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
3. Comments are due no later than May 29, 2015.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning an amendment to Priority Mail Contract 105 negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On May 21, 2015, the Postal Service filed notice that it has agreed to an Amendment to the existing Priority Mail Contract 105 negotiated service agreement (Existing Agreement) approved in this docket.
The Postal Service also filed the unredacted Amendment under seal. The Postal Service seeks to incorporate by reference the Application for Non-Public Treatment originally filed in this docket for the protection of information it has filed under seal. Notice at 1. The Postal Service states that the Amendment does not materially affect cost coverage; therefore, it asserts that the supporting financial documentation and certification remain applicable.
The Amendment replaces section I.B of the Existing Agreement, which concerns the minimum commitment required for eligibility for certain prices.
The Postal Service intends for the Amendment to become effective one business day after the date that the Commission completes its review of the Notice. Notice at 1.
The Commission invites comments on whether the changes presented in the Postal Service's Notice are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than May 29, 2015. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints James F. Callow to represent the interests of the general public (Public Representative) in this docket.
1. The Commission reopens Docket No. CP2015-25 for consideration of matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints James F. Callow to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
3. Comments are due no later than May 29, 2015.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules related to audit trail retention requirements. The scope of this filing is limited solely to the application of the rule amendments to security futures traded on CFE. The only security futures currently traded on CFE are traded under Chapter 16 of CFE's Rulebook which is applicable to Individual Stock Based and Exchange-Traded Fund Based Volatility Index security futures. The text of the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit 4 to the filing but is not attached to the publication of this notice.
In its filing with the Commission, CFE included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. CFE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed CFE rule amendments included as part of this rule change is to amend CFE's requirements regarding the maintenance of front-end audit trail information under CFE Rule 403 (Order Entry). The rule amendments included as part of this rule change are to apply to all products traded on CFE, including both non-security futures and security futures.
CFE Rule 403(c) currently requires every CFE Trading Privilege Holder (“TPH”) to maintain front-end audit trail information for all electronic orders entered into CFE's trading system, including order modifications and cancellations. The amendments provide that only CFE clearing members
Front-end audit trail information is a chronological record that provides documentary evidence of the transactions effected on CFE's trading system. The CFTC's DCM Core Principle 10 (Trade Information)
CFE is proposing these amendments for the following reasons. First, when CFE initially established its audit trail program and set forth CFE Rule 403, CFE provided that each TPH was required to maintain front-end audit trail information sufficient to allow CFE to conduct an annual audit trail exam of that TPH, a requirement that went above and beyond what the CFTC requires. The CFTC permits CFE to require clearing members to retain this information for purposes of audit trail exams and to conduct audit trail exams of clearing members in lieu of conducting them of a clearing member's TPH customers. Since Rule 403's inception, there is now an efficient format and mechanism for CFE clearing members to obtain CFE audit trail data for their TPH customers, whereas there was no such format and mechanism when CFE established its current requirements related to the maintenance of front-end audit trail information. Second, it is more efficient for CFE to collect audit trail data from its clearing members than all of its TPHs for audit trail reviews and doing so will enhance the effectiveness of CFE's regulatory program. CFE clearing members now have a standardized method for maintaining and submitting audit trail data of their TPHs, and CFE will be able to access all of the same audit trail information CFE currently can access under Rule 403's current language. Finally, other futures exchanges currently have similar requirements in place.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
• To promote just and equitable principles of trade,
• to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and
• to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would strengthen and make more efficient and effective CFE's administration of its audit trail program which will contribute to preventing and detecting customer and market abuse. The change provides that only CFE clearing members and TPHs that are FCMs or IBs, rather than all TPHs, are required to maintain front-end audit trail information for all electronic orders as well as quotes entered into CFE's trading system, including all related modifications and cancellations. In addition, the change provides that CFE clearing members must also maintain, or cause to be maintained, this information for their TPH customers. This proposed rule change promotes efficiencies because CFE clearing members now have available an efficient format and mechanism to obtain CFE audit trail data for their TPH customers. In addition, it is more efficient for CFE to collect audit trail data from its clearing members than all of its TPHs for audit trail reviews and doing so will enhance the effectiveness of CFE's regulatory program. Finally, this proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of other futures exchanges. In summary, CFE is requiring the same audit information to be maintained and is simply changing who is required to keep it.
CFE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, in that the rule change will enhance CFE's ability to carry out its responsibilities as a self-regulatory organization. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the amendments regarding the maintenance of front-end audit trail information apply equally to all parties that are subject to the applicable requirements.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The proposed rule change will become effective on or after May 22, 2015, on a date to be announced by the Exchange through the issuance of a circular. At any time within 60 days of
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The proposed rule change consists of a change to Rule 2 of the Rules of DTC to clarify that Participants are required to participate in operational testing by DTC, including testing of DTC's business continuity and disaster recovery plans, as more fully described below.
In its filing with the Commission, DTC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. DTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Pursuant to DTC's Rule 2 (Participants and Pledgees), a DTC Participant is required to have “adequate physical facilities, books and records and procedures to fulfill its anticipated commitments to, and to meet the operational requirements of, the Corporation, other Participants and Pledgees with necessary promptness and accuracy and to conform to any condition and requirement which the Corporation reasonably deems necessary for its protection.” DTC is proposing to update Rule 2, as marked on Exhibit 5 hereto,
The proposed rule change is consistent with the Ac [sic], and the rules and regulations thereunder, in particular Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
The proposed rule change will not have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet been solicited or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by DTC.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to delay the implementation of Rule 15.2A. There is no proposed change to the rule text.
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On August 13, 2014, the Commission approved CBOE Rules 6.53(y) and 15.2A.
On January 7, 2015, CBOE submitted a rule filing to delay the implementation of these rules based on feedback it received from TPHs.
While the Exchange believes there has been sufficient training and circulars provided to Trading Permit Holders on the marking requirement to move forward with implementation of that requirement on July 1, 2015, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to delay the implementation of the reporting requirement. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to further delay the implementation date of the tied to stock reporting requirement for tied to stock orders.
The Exchange expects its evaluation to be completed and to implement the reporting requirement within 12 to 18 months of the date of this filing. This will provide CBOE with sufficient time to conduct this evaluation and TPHs with sufficient time to implement any potential changes to the reporting requirement format. The Exchange will issue a regulatory circular announcing the new implementation date for the reporting requirement as least 90 days prior to that date.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes the delayed implementation of Rule 15.2A will provide the Exchange with sufficient time to evaluate the information obtained through the marking requirement and the related reporting requirement format to ensure that the Exchange receives reports from TPHs in a manner that can be incorporated into surveillance systems in an efficient and effective manner. This will ultimately improve the Exchange's ability to tie executed non-option legs to the applicable option legs that were separately submitted for execution, which will assist in the Exchange's efforts to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices with respect to tied to stock orders.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change does not impose any burden on competition, as it is simply seeking to delay the implementation of the tied to stock reporting requirement.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
A. significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On March 25, 2015, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Exchange” or “Nasdaq”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares under Nasdaq Rule 5735, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange. The Fund will be an actively-managed exchange-traded fund (“ETF”). The Shares will be offered by the Trust.
Etfis Capital LLC will be the investment adviser (“Adviser”) to the Fund. Tuttle Tactical Management, LLC will be the investment sub-adviser (“Sub-Adviser”) to the Fund. ETF Distributors LLC will be the principal underwriter and distributor of the Fund's Shares. The Bank of New York Mellon will act as the administrator, accounting agent, custodian, and transfer agent to the Fund. The Exchange states that the Adviser and Sub-Adviser are not registered as broker-dealers but that the Adviser is affiliated with a broker-dealer.
The Exchange has made the following representations and statements regarding the Fund.
The Fund's investment objective will be to seek current income while maintaining a secondary emphasis on long-term capital appreciation and low volatility. The Fund will seek to achieve its investment objective by utilizing a long-only, multi-strategy, tactically-managed exposure to the U.S. equity market. To obtain such exposure, the Sub-Adviser will invest, under normal market conditions,
• The Fund will not use derivative instruments, including options, swaps, forwards and futures contracts.
• The Fund will not invest in leveraged, inverse, or leveraged inverse ETPs.
• The Fund's net assets that are invested in exchange-traded equities, including ETPs and common stock, will be invested in instruments that trade in markets that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) or are parties to a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with the Exchange.
• The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities and other illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment).
• The Fund does not presently intend to engage in any form of borrowing for investment purposes, and will not be operated as a “leveraged ETF”,
After careful review, the Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal to list and trade the Shares is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission finds that the proposal to list and trade the Shares on the Exchange is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Exchange Act,
Price information regarding the ETPs, equity securities, U.S. treasuries, money market instruments and money market Funds held by the Fund will be available through the U.S. exchanges trading such assets, in the case of exchange-traded securities, as well as automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, or on-line information services such as Bloomberg or Reuters. Intra-day price information for all assets held by the Fund will also be available through subscription services, such as Bloomberg, Markit and Thomson Reuters, which can be accessed by authorized participants and other investors. Information regarding market price and volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. The previous day's closing price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers.
The Commission also believes that the proposal to list and trade the Shares is reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be necessary to price the Shares appropriately and to prevent trading when a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be assured. On each business day, before commencement of trading in Shares in the Regular Market Session
The Exchange represents that it may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of the Fund. Nasdaq will halt trading in the Shares under the conditions specified in Nasdaq Rules 4120 and 4121, including the trading pauses under Nasdaq Rules 4120(a)(11) and (12). Trading also may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable.
The Exchange states that it has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and other exchange-traded securities and instruments held by the Fund with other markets and other entities that are members of ISG,
The Commission notes that the Fund and the Shares must comply with the requirements of Nasdaq Rule 5735 to be listed and traded on the Exchange. Nasdaq deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to Nasdaq's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. In support of this proposal, the Exchange represented that:
(1) The Shares will be subject to Nasdaq Rule 5735, which sets forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Managed Fund Shares.
(2) Trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances administered by both Nasdaq and FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws, and these procedures are adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
(3) The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions.
(4) Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following: (a) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (b) Nasdaq Rule 2111A, which imposes suitability obligations on Nasdaq members with respect to recommending transactions in the Shares to customers; (c) how information regarding the Intraday Indicative Value and Disclosed Portfolio is disseminated; (d) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Pre-Market and Post-Market Sessions when an updated Intraday Indicative Value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (e) the requirement that members deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (f) trading information.
(5) For initial and/or continued listing, the Fund must be in compliance with Rule 10A-3
(6) The Fund will not use derivative instruments, including options, swaps, forwards and futures contracts, both listed and OTC.
(7) The Fund's net assets that are invested in exchange-traded equities, including ETPs and common stock, will be invested in instruments that trade in markets that are members of ISG or are parties to a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with the Exchange.
(8) The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities and other illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment).
(9) A minimum of 100,000 Shares will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange.
This approval order is based on all of the Exchange's representations, including those set forth above and in the Notice. For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On March 20, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc., (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change. The proposed rule change, if approved, would modify the Market Maker appointment and withdrawal process used by the Exchange.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter XV, entitled “Options Pricing” and Section 2, entitled “Options Market—Fees and Rebates”. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to: (1) Decrease the Fee to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options;
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Chapter XV, Section 2. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to: (1) Decrease the Fee to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options for Customers
The Penny Pilot, established on the Exchange in 2012, allows options to quote and trade in penny increments. The Exchange's options pricing for execution of contracts on the BX Options Market has a separate section for fees and rebates for Penny Pilot Options.
Currently, Section 2(1) of Chapter XV reflects Penny Pilot Options fees and rebates for Penny Pilot Options for Customer, BX Options Market Maker, and Non Customer
There is also one note applicable to the Fee to Add Liquidity for BX Options Market Makers section that does not change.
The Exchange proposes to decrease by a penny the Fee to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options for Customers and BX Options Market Makers, and to decrease by a penny the Rebate to Remove Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options for Customers.
In addition to reducing the fee and rate schedule as discussed, the Exchange also proposes to delete note 4, which is applicable to the Fee to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options for BX Options Market Makers only. Note 4, which applies to LMMs in their specifically allocated options classes when adding liquidity and contra to a Customer, currently indicates fees of $0.40, $0.38, and $0.37 depending on Monthly Volume Tier A, B, and C thresholds, respectively.
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes are consistent with the Act and raise no novel issues.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that applying the same fees to add liquidity for Customers and BX Options Market Makers in all Penny Pilot Options, and applying the same rebates to remove liquidity for Customers in all Penny Pilot Options, promotes just and equitable principles of trade, and fosters cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in Penny Pilot Options. As a result, the fees for adding such liquidity will be the same for all Customers and BX Options Market Makers (as well as LMMs); and the rebates for removing such liquidity will be the same for all Customers.
The proposed rule change also protects investors and the public interest and seeks to establish and promote just and equitable principles of trade by creating more uniformity and consistency related to fees and rebates for Penny Pilot Options. The Exchange believes that the proposal will not diminish, and in fact may increase, market making activity on the Exchange by ensuring fees and rebates that are reasonable and provide incentive for trading Penny Pilot Options on the Exchange. With this proposal, the same fees for adding Penny Pilot Options liquidity will be applicable for Customers and BX Options Market Makers; and the same rebates for removing Penny Pilot Options liquidity will be applicable for Customers.
The proposal to moderately decrease the Fee to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and the Rebate to Remove Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options, and to delete the Tiers that apply to LMMs, is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.
The Exchange's proposal to decrease the Customer and BX Options Market Maker Fee for Removing Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options from $0.40 to $0.39, and to decrease the Customer Rebate for Removing Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options from $0.35 to $0.34 per contract, is reasonable because it will continue to incentivize bringing Penny Pilot Options liquidity to the Exchange. This should benefit all market participants through increased liquidity and order interaction. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee/rebate change will incentivize market participants to select the Exchange as a venue to post liquidity and attract additional order flow to the benefit of all market participants. Increased liquidity provides more trading opportunities, which attracts other market participants, including market makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants. Moreover, in constructing the Exchange's fee and rebate program, the Exchange aims to remain competitive with other venues so that it is a superior choice for market participants.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to decrease the Customer and BX Options Market Maker Fee for Removing Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options from $0.40 to $0.39, and to decrease the Customer Rebate for Removing Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options from $0.35 to $0.34 per contract, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will assess the fees and rebates uniformly to all members [sic], as applicable regardless of activity level. The fees for adding Penny Pilot Options liquidity will be the same for all Customers and BX Options Market Makers; and the rebates for removing Penny Pilot Options liquidity will be the same for all Customers.
The Exchange will continue to assess all Non-Customers a higher $0.45 fee to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options. The Exchange believes that this is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The proposed differentiation between BX Options Market Makers and other market participants such as Non-Customers recognizes the differing contributions made to the liquidity and trading environment on the Exchange by these market participants. BX Options Market Makers, unlike other market participants, have obligations to the market and regulatory requirements,
The Exchange further believes that is reasonable to delete the Tiers applicable to LMMs in respect of the Rebate to Remove Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options. The Exchange believes that in light of the proposed reduced fees/rebates discussed herein the Tiers are no longer necessary to incentivize LMMs to provide liquidity. The Exchange believes that under such circumstances it is reasonable and desirable to treat all uniformly in terms of the rates, as discussed.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to delete the Tiers applicable to LMMs is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will assess the fees and rebates uniformly to all members [sic], as applicable.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of twelve exchanges, in which market participants can easily and readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or rebates to be inadequate. Accordingly, the fees that are assessed and the rebates paid by the Exchange, as described in the proposal, are influenced by these robust market forces and therefore must remain competitive with fees charged and rebates paid by other venues; that is, the Exchange's fees and rebates must continue to be reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that opt to
The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, BX has designed its fees and rebates to compete effectively for the execution and routing of Penny Pilot Options contracts on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amended fees and rebates will attract market participants and BX Options Market Makers to engage in market making activities at the Exchange, which results in tighter markets and order interaction and benefits all market participants. Moreover, BX Options Market Makers have obligations to the market and regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to other market participants.
The Exchange believes the proposals discussed herein do not pose an undue burden on intermarket competition. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market comprised of twelve U.S. options exchanges in which sophisticated and knowledgeable market participants can and do send order flow to competing exchanges if they deem fee levels at a particular exchange to be excessive. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee and rebate scheme discussed herein is competitive. The Exchange believes that this competitive marketplace materially impacts the fees and rebates present on the Exchange today and substantially influences the proposal set forth above.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange seeks to amend its rules related to order tickets. The text of the proposed rule change is provided below.
.01 No change.
.02 Complex orders of twelve (12) legs or less (one leg of which may be for an underlying security or security future, as applicable) must be entered on a single order ticket at time of systemization. If permitted by the Exchange (which the Exchange will announce by Regulatory Circular), complex orders of more than twelve (12) legs (one leg of which may be for an underlying security or security future, as applicable) may be split across multiple order tickets if the Trading Permit Holder representing the complex order [includes twelve (12) legs on one of the order tickets]
.01 An SPX Combo Order for twelve (12) legs or less must be entered on a single order ticket at time of systemization. If permitted by the Exchange (which the Exchange will announce by Regulatory Circular), an SPX Combo Order for more than twelve (12) legs may be represented or executed as a single SPX Combo Order in accordance with this Rule 24.20 if it is split across multiple order tickets and the Trading Permit Holder representing the SPX Combo Order [includes twelve (12) legs on one of the order tickets]
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the order ticket requirements applicable to complex orders in open outcry pursuant to Rule 6.53, as well as SPX Combo Orders
On February 26, 2015, rule change filing SR-CBOE-2015-011 was approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”).
Rule 24.20, as amended, also requires that an SPX Combo Order for twelve (12) legs or less be entered on a single order ticket at time of systemization. An SPX Combo Order that contains more than twelve (12) legs may be represented and executed as a single SPX Combo Order in accordance with Rule 24.20 if it is split across multiple order tickets and the TPH representing the SPX Combo Order includes twelve (12) legs on one of the order tickets and identifies for the Exchange the order tickets that are part of the same SPX Combo Order (in a manner and form prescribed by the Exchange).
As noted above, SR-CBOE-2015-011 specifically provided that if an open outcry complex order or an SPX Combo Order with more than twelve legs is split across multiple order tickets, one of the order tickets must contain twelve legs. For example, a thirteen leg order could not have seven legs on one ticket and six legs on another ticket; rather, one ticket must have twelve legs and the other ticket must have one leg. However, prior to the Commission's approval of SR-CBOE-2015-011, the Exchange held an informational session for Floor Broker Trading Permit Holders regarding the requirement to use a single order ticket to enter complex orders and SPX Combo Orders of twelve legs or fewer.
Additionally, for complex orders with over twelve legs and an equal number of put legs versus call legs, Floor Broker TPHs expressed the desire to place the put legs on one order ticket and the call legs on a separate order ticket. The Floor Broker TPHs indicated that splitting an order across multiple order tickets in this manner is a more efficient and simpler way to price the entire complex order.
In an effort to address the above concerns and maintain an effective audit trail, the Exchange is seeking to amend Rules 6.53.02 and 24.20.1 by removing the requirement that for orders with over 12 legs TPHs must include 12 legs on one of the order tickets. As proposed, Rule 6.53.02 will provide:
• Complex orders of twelve (12) legs or less (one leg of which may be for an underlying security or security future, as applicable) must be entered on a single order ticket at time of systemization. If permitted by the Exchange (which the Exchange will announce by Regulatory Circular), complex orders of more than twelve (12) legs (one leg of which may be for an underlying security or security future, as applicable) may be split across multiple order tickets if the Trading Permit Holder representing the complex order uses the fewest order tickets necessary to systematize the order and identifies for the Exchange the order tickets that are part of the same complex order (in a form and manner prescribed by the Exchange).
An SPX Combo Order for twelve (12) legs or less must be entered on a single order ticket at time of systemization. If permitted by the Exchange (which the Exchange will announce by Regulatory Circular), an SPX Combo Order for more than twelve (12) legs may be represented or executed as a single SPX Combo Order in accordance with this Rule 24.20 if it is split across multiple order tickets and the Trading Permit Holder representing the SPX Combo Order uses the fewest order tickets necessary to systematize the order and identifies for the Exchange the order tickets that are part of the same SPX Combo Order (in a manner and form prescribed by the Exchange).
The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change, as well as the specific order ticket requirements to be set by the Exchange in accordance with this proposed rule, in a Regulatory Circular to be published within 90 days of the effective date of this filing. The implementation date of this filing will be within 180 days of the effective date of this filing.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will allow the Exchange to maintain an enhanced audit trail with respect to open outcry complex order processing and SPX Combo Orders, which helps to protect investors and the public interest because an enhanced audit trail promotes transparency and aids in surveillance, as well as, provides the Exchange the ability to better enforce compliance by the Exchange's TPHs (and persons associated with its TPHs) with the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder and the rules of the Exchange, thereby protecting investors. Additionally, the Exchange believes allowing TPHs to split orders across multiple order tickets as proposed would allow TPHs to more quickly and efficiently systematize and execute open outcry complex orders and SPX Combo Orders, which helps to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market. Finally, the proposal to require TPHs to use the fewest number of order tickets to systematize an order will prevent TPHs from utilizing five order tickets, for example, when two would suffice, which aids in surveillance and provides the Exchange the ability to better enforce compliance by TPHs.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket or intermarket competition because the order ticket requirements will be applicable to all TPHs executing complex orders in open outcry and SPX Combo Orders.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposal.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule, effective May 11, 2015. On January 2, 2015, the Exchange established an FBW fee for an updated version of FBW (“FBW2”), which the Exchange had anticipated making available shortly thereafter to all TPHs.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to provide a waiver of FBW2 fees for the months of May and June 2015 because it allows new users time to become familiar with and fully acclimated to the new FBW functionality and incentivizes the users to begin this process as soon as the new functionality becomes available. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to provide a waiver for the first month for a new login ID beginning July 1, 2015, because it allows a new user after June 2015 to fully acclimate to the new FBW functionality. Additionally, the Exchange notes it is merely extending existing waivers to correspond with the delayed launch of FBW2.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because it applies to all Trading Permit Holders. The Exchange believes this proposal will not cause an unnecessary burden on intermarket competition because the proposal only affects trading on CBOE. To the extent that the proposed changes make CBOE a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become CBOE market participants.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On March 20, 2015, NYSE MKT LLC, (“NYSE MKT” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change. The proposed rule change, if approved, would modify the Market Maker appointment and withdrawal process used by the Exchange.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On September 5, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On December 22, 2014, the Commission instituted proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
The Exchange subsequently filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on January 20, 2015.
This order grants approval of the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 thereto.
NYSE Arca proposes to list and trade Shares of the Fund under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange. The Shares will be offered by SSgA Active ETF Trust (“Trust”), which is organized as a Massachusetts business trust and is registered with the Commission as an open-end management investment company.
According to the Exchange, the Fund will seek to provide competitive, long-term returns while maintaining low, long-term volatility relative to the broad global market. Under normal circumstances,
According to the Exchange, the Adviser will utilize a proprietary quantitative investment process to select a portfolio of exchange-listed-and-traded equity securities that the Adviser believes will exhibit low volatility and provide competitive, long-term returns relative to the broad global market.
The Adviser will manage the investments of the Portfolio. Under the master-feeder arrangement, and pursuant to the investment advisory agreement between the Adviser and the Trust, investment advisory fees charged at the Portfolio level will be deducted from the advisory fees charged at the Fund level. This arrangement avoids a “layering” of fees,
Under normal circumstances, the non-U.S. equity securities in the Fund's portfolio will meet the following criteria at time of purchase: (1) Non-U.S. equity securities each shall have a minimum market value of at least $100 million; (2) non-U.S. equity securities each shall have a minimum global monthly trading volume of 250,000 shares, or minimum global notional volume traded per month of $25,000,000, averaged over the last six months; (3) the most heavily weighted non-U.S. equity security shall not exceed 25% of the weight of the Fund's entire portfolio, and, to the extent applicable, the five most heavily weighted non-U.S. equity securities shall not exceed 60% of the weight of the Fund's entire portfolio; and (4) each non-U.S. equity security shall be listed and traded on an exchange that has last-sale reporting.
The Portfolio and Fund do not intend to concentrate their investments in any particular industry. The Portfolio and Fund will look to the Global Industry Classification Standard (“GICS”) Level 3 (Industries) in making industry determinations.
The Portfolio may invest in exchange-traded preferred securities. Preferred securities pay fixed or adjustable rate dividends to investors and have “preference” over common stock in the payment of dividends and the liquidation of a company's assets.
In certain situations or market conditions, in order to take temporary defensive positions, the Fund may (either directly or through the Portfolio) temporarily depart from its normal investment policies and strategies, provided that the alternative is consistent with the Fund's investment objective and is in the best interest of the Fund. For example, the Fund may hold a higher than normal proportion of its assets in cash in times of extreme market stress. According to the Exchange, in addition to the principal investments described above, the Portfolio may invest its remaining net assets in other investments, as described below. The investment practices of the Portfolio are the same in all material respects as those of the Fund.
The Portfolio may invest in U.S. Government obligations
The Portfolio may conduct foreign currency transactions on a spot (
The Portfolio may invest in exchange-traded products (“ETPs”), including exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) registered under the 1940 Act, exchange-traded commodity trusts, and exchange-traded notes.
The Portfolio may invest in repurchase agreements with commercial banks, brokers, or dealers to generate income from its excess cash balances and to invest securities lending cash collateral.
In addition to repurchase agreements, the Portfolio may invest in short-term instruments, including money market instruments (including money market funds advised by the Adviser), cash, and cash equivalents, on an ongoing basis to provide liquidity or for other reasons.
According to the Exchange, the Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment), including Rule 144A securities deemed illiquid by the Adviser. The Fund will monitor its portfolio liquidity on an ongoing basis to determine whether, in light of current circumstances, an adequate level of liquidity is being maintained, and will consider taking appropriate steps in order to maintain adequate liquidity if, through a change in values, net assets, or other circumstances, more than 15% of the Fund's net assets are held in illiquid assets. Illiquid assets include securities subject to contractual or other restrictions on resale and other instruments that lack readily available markets as determined in accordance with Commission staff guidance.
The Exchange represents that the Portfolio and the Fund will be classified as a “non-diversified” investment company under the 1940 Act. A non-diversified classification means that the Portfolio or Fund is not limited by the 1940 Act with regard to the percentage of its assets that may be invested in the securities of a single issuer. This means that the Portfolio or Fund may invest a greater portion of its assets in the securities of a single issuer than a diversified fund. Although the Portfolio and Fund will be non-diversified for purposes of the 1940 Act, the Portfolio and Fund intend to maintain the required level of diversification and otherwise conduct its operations so as to qualify as a “regulated investment company” for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
The Exchange represents that neither the Fund nor the Portfolio will invest in options, futures contracts, or swap agreements. The Exchange further represents that the Fund's and Portfolio's investments will be consistent with the Fund's investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal to list and trade the Shares is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission also finds that the proposal to list and trade the Shares on the Exchange is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Exchange Act,
The NAV of the Portfolio will be calculated by the Custodian and determined at the close of the regular trading session on the NYSE (ordinarily 4:00 p.m. Eastern time) on each day that the NYSE is open, provided that fixed-income assets (and, accordingly, the Portfolio's NAV) may be valued as of the announced closing time for trading in fixed-income instruments on any day that the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (or applicable exchange or market on which the Portfolio's investments are traded) announces an early closing time.
The Commission further believes that the proposal to list and trade the Shares is reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be necessary to price the Shares appropriately and to prevent trading when a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be assured. The Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time.
Trading in Shares of the Fund will be halted if the circuit-breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 have been reached. Trading also may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable.
The Exchange represents that it has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
The Exchange represents that the Adviser is not a registered broker-dealer but is affiliated with a broker-dealer and has implemented a “fire wall” with respect to that broker-dealer regarding access to information concerning the composition or changes to the Fund's portfolio.
The Exchange represents that it deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. In support of this proposal, the Exchange has also made the following representations:
(1) The Shares will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600.
(2) The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions.
(3) Trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws, and these procedures are adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and federal securities laws applicable to trading on the Exchange.
(4) FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares, ETPs, and certain exchange-traded securities underlying the Shares with other markets and other entities that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”), and FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares, ETPs and certain exchange-traded securities underlying the Shares from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares, ETPs, and certain exchange-traded securities underlying the Shares from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
(5) Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit Holders in a Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Bulletin will discuss the following: (i) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Unit aggregations (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (ii) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its Equity Trading Permit Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (iii) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions when an updated Portfolio Indicative Value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (iv) how information regarding the Portfolio Indicative Value and the Disclosed Portfolio is disseminated; (v) the requirement that Equity Trading Permit Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (vi) trading information.
(6) For initial and continued listing, the Fund will be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the Act,
(7) The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment), including Rule 144A restricted securities deemed illiquid by the Adviser.
(8) Neither the Fund nor the Portfolio will invest in options, futures contracts, or swap agreements.
(9) The Fund's and Portfolio's investments will be consistent with its investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage.
(10) Under normal circumstances, the non-U.S. equity securities in the Fund's portfolio will meet the following criteria at time of purchase: (a) Non-U.S. equity securities each shall have a minimum market value of at least $100 million; (b) non-U.S. equity securities each shall have a minimum global monthly trading volume of 250,000 shares, or minimum global notional volume traded per month of $25,000,000, averaged over the last six months; (c) the most heavily weighted non-U.S. equity security shall not exceed 25% of the weight of the Fund's entire portfolio, and, to the extent applicable, the five most heavily weighted non-U.S. equity securities shall not exceed 60% of the weight of the Fund's entire portfolio; and (d) each non-U.S. equity security shall be listed and traded on an exchange that has last-sale reporting. In addition, under normal circumstances, the Portfolio will include a minimum of 20 exchange-listed and traded equity securities.
(11) The Portfolio and Fund do not intend to concentrate their investments in any particular industry. The Portfolio and Fund will look to the GICS Level 3 (Industries) standard in making industry determinations.
(12) Not more than 10% of the net assets of the Fund will be invested in unsponsored ADRs.
(13) A minimum of 100,000 Shares for the Fund will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange.
This approval order is based on all of the Exchange's representations, including those set forth above and in the Notice, Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 to the proposed rule change, and the Exchange's description of the Fund. The Commission notes that the Fund and the Shares must comply with the requirements of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 to be initially and continuously listed and traded on the Exchange.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 thereto, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that the Department of State proposes to create a system of records, Official Gift Records and Gift Donor Vetting Records, State-80, pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-130, Appendix I.
This system of records will be effective on July 7, 2015, unless we receive comments that will result in a contrary determination.
Any persons interested in commenting on the new system of records may do so by writing to the Director; Office of Information Programs and Services, A/GIS/IPS; Department of State, SA-2; 515 22nd Street NW., Washington, DC 20522-8100.
John Hackett, Acting Director; Office of Information Programs and Services, A/GIS/IPS; Department of State, SA-2; 515 22nd Street NW., Washington, DC 20522-8100, or at
The Department of State proposes that the new system will be named “Official Gift Records and Gift Donor Vetting Records.” Official Gift Records consist of an accounting of all donations received on behalf of the Department of State for the purposes of: (a) Maintaining an historical record, (b) properly allocating donations given for a particular purpose, (c) determining future solicitation and gift acceptance, and (d) providing donors with acknowledgment letters for tax purposes.
Gift Donor Vetting Records are maintained for the purpose of: (a) Maintaining an historical record, and (b) keeping an accounting of the due diligence vetting conducted on individuals to determine the potential for conflicts of interest with respect to gifts and potential gifts to, and potential partnerships with, the Department of State.
The Department's report was filed with the Office of Management and Budget. The new system description, “Official Gift Records and Gift Donor Vetting Records, State-80,” will read as set forth below.
Official Gift Records and Gift Donor Vetting Records.
Unclassified and Classified.
Department of State, 2201 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20520. Abroad at U.S. embassies, U.S. consulates general, and U.S. consulates; U.S. missions; Department of State annexes; various field and regional offices throughout the United States.
Individuals who have donated gifts, who are being solicited to donate gifts, and who are otherwise being vetted in connection with potential gifts to, or partnerships with, the Department of State (defined for the purposes of this System of Records Notice to include its subsidiary divisions including U.S. embassies, U.S. consulates general, U.S. consulates, U.S. missions, Department of State annexes, or various field and regional offices throughout the United States); and individuals who are points of contact for corporations or foundations that donate gifts to the Department of State.
Records in this system include information about gifts to the Department of State (“official gifts”), including gift donor and recipient information and information about individuals who are points of contact for corporate or foundation donors. Such information includes but is not limited to:
(a) Information about the donor or point of contact including name and title, address, and relevant business affiliations;
(b) Information about gifts and recipients including descriptions of gifts and decorations; the dollar value of gifts; the recipient bureau, region, post or office; the purpose of the donation as expressed by the donor and/or the soliciting office; the authority under which the gift was received; the date of receipt; type of gift (cash or in-kind); date of check deposit; deposit number; appropriation type (conditional or unconditional); copies of checks donated; copies of donor letters; copies of acknowledgment letters; and
(c) Vetting records, which include (1) identifying information about individual gift donors or potential gift donors or potential partners that is used to conduct and narrow due diligence research including the individual's full name, date of birth, last known residence, Web site if any, affiliation if any, and other identifying information used to conduct vetting; and (2) information obtained as a result of due diligence searches, including but not limited to criminal history information, financial history information including bankruptcies, information regarding judgments, liens, and global sanctions, and any other information relevant to the determination as to whether there is a conflict of interest.
22 U.S.C. 2621, 22 U.S.C. 2625, Foreign Service Buildings Act of 1926, Sec. 9, as amended (22 U.S.C. 300), State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, Sec. 25, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2697), Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, Sec. 695(d), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2395(d)), Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962, Sec. 3(a)(2), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2602), Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, as amended (5
Official Gift Records consist of an accounting of all donations received on behalf of the Department of State for the purposes of: (a) Maintaining an historical record, (b) properly allocating donations given for a particular purpose, (c) determining future solicitation and gift acceptance, and (d) providing donors with acknowledgment letters for tax purposes.
Gift Donor Vetting Records are maintained for the purpose of: (a) Maintaining an historical record, and (b) keeping an accounting of the due diligence vetting conducted on individuals to determine the potential for conflicts of interest with respect to gifts and potential gifts to, and potential partnerships with, the Department of State.
Information in this system can be shared with federal, state, and local tax authorities in connection with tax and bankruptcy matters and other lawful purposes.
The Department of State publishes periodically in the
Electronic and hard copy media.
By an individual name; individual address; date of birth; individual Web site; donor country; recipient bureau, region, post or office; purpose; dollar value; date/fiscal year of receipt or deposit; corporation, foundation, or entity name; gift type (cash or in-kind); authority under which gift was received; deposit number; appropriation type.
All users are given cyber security awareness training which covers the procedures for handling Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) information, including personally identifiable information (PII). Annual refresher training is mandatory. In addition, all Foreign Service and Civil Service employees and those Locally Engaged Staff who handle PII are required to take the Foreign Service Institute distance learning course, PA 459, instructing employees on privacy and security requirements, including the rules of behavior for handling PII and the potential consequences if it is handled improperly. Before being granted access to Official Gift Records and Gift Donor Vetting Records, a user must first be granted access to the Department of State computer system.
Remote access to the Department of State network from non-Department owned systems is authorized only to unclassified systems and only through a Department approved access program. Remote access to the network is configured with the Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-07-16 security requirements which include but are not limited to two-factor authentication and time out function.
All Department of State employees and contractors with authorized access have undergone a thorough background security investigation. Access to the Department of State, its annexes and posts abroad is controlled by security guards and admission is limited to those individuals possessing a valid identification card or individuals under proper escort. All paper records containing personal information are maintained in secured file cabinets in restricted areas, access to which is limited to authorized personnel only. Access to computerized files is password-protected and under the direct supervision of the system manager. The system manager has the capability of printing audit trails of access from the computer media, thereby permitting regular and ad hoc monitoring of computer usage. When it is determined that a user no longer needs access, the user account is disabled.
Records are retired and destroyed in accordance with published Department of State Records Disposition Schedules as approved by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). More specific information may be obtained by writing to the following address: Director, Office of Information Programs and Services, A/GIS/IPS; SA-2, Department of State; 515 22nd Street NW., Washington, DC 20522-8100.
Gift Fund Director, Office of Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service, Department of State, 2201 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20520.
Vetting Unit, Secretary's Office of Global Partnerships, Department of State, 2201 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20520.
Director and Curator, Diplomatic Reception Rooms, Department of State, 2201 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20520.
Individuals who have cause to believe that the Official Gift Records and Gift Donor Vetting Records System may contain records pertaining to him or her should write to the following address: Director, Office of Information Programs and Services, A/GIS/IPS; SA-2 Department of State; 515 22nd Street NW., Washington, DC 20522-8100.
The individual must specify that the Official Gift Records and Gift Donor Vetting Records System should be checked. At a minimum, the individual must include the following: Name, date and place of birth, current mailing address and zip code, signature, and any other information helpful in identifying the record.
Individuals who wish to gain access to or amend records pertaining to themselves should write to the Director; Office of Information Programs and Services (address above).
(See above).
These records contain information collected directly from: The individual who is the subject of these records; employers and public references; other officials in the Department of State; other government agencies; foreign governments; federal and public searchable databases; and other public and professional institutions possessing relevant information.
None.
Notice; correction.
On March 27, 2015, notice was published on pages 16492 and 16493 of the
For further information, including a description of the additional exhibit object, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before June 17, 2015.
You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2009-1058 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mark Forseth, ANM-113, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356, email
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Docket No.: FAA-2009-1058.
Petitioner: The Boeing Company.
Section of 14 CFR Affected: § 25.981(a)(3).
Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner is seeking relief for Boeing Model 747-8/-BF airplanes to remove the requirement to cap-seal the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of the ARAC.
The meeting will be held on June 18, 2015, starting at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Arrange oral presentations by June 11, 2015.
The meeting will take place at the Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, 10th floor, MacCracken Conference Room.
Renee Pocius, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-5093; fax (202) 267-5075; email
Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), we are giving notice of a meeting of the ARAC taking place on June 18, 2015, at the Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
The Agenda includes:
1. Status Reports From Active Working Groups
a. Airman Certification Systems Working Group (ARAC)
b. Aircraft Systems Information Security/Protection Working Group (ARAC)
c. Airworthiness Assurance Working Group (TAE)
d. Engine Harmonization Working Group (TAE)—Engine Endurance Testing Requirements—Revision of Section 33.87
e. Flight Test Harmonization Working Group (TAE)—Phase 2 Tasking
f. Materials Flammability Working Group (TAE)
g. Transport Airplane Metallic and Composite Structures Working Group (TAE)—Transport Airplane Damage-Tolerance and Fatigue Evaluation
h. Transport Airplane Crashworthiness and Ditching Evaluation Working Group (TAE)
2. New Tasks
a. Air Traffic Controller Basic Qualification Training Working Group (ARAC)
3. Status Report from the FAA
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to the space available. Please confirm your attendance with the person listed in the
For persons participating by telephone, please contact the person listed in the
The public must arrange by June 11, 2015 to present oral statements at the meeting. The public may present written statements to the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee by providing 25 copies to the Designated Federal Officer, or by bringing the copies to the meeting.
If you are in need of assistance or require a reasonable accommodation for this meeting, please contact the person listed under the heading
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before June 17, 2015.
You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2015-1081 using any of the following methods:
• Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to
• Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
• Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at 202-493-2251.
• Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building
Alphonso Pendergrass (202) 267-4713. This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Docket No.: FAA-2015-1081.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT), and Polk County, DOT.
Rescind Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare and environmental impact statement.
The FHWA, the Iowa DOT and Polk County are issuing this notice to rescind the NOI published on October 13, 2006 and to advise the public that studies for the environmental impact statement (EIS) will cease for the proposed transportation project in Polk County, Iowa.
Michael LaPietra, Environment and Realty Manager, FHWA Iowa Division Office, 105 Sixth Street, Ames, IA 50010, Phone 515-233-7302; or James P. Rost, Director, Office of Location and Environment, Iowa Department of Transportation, 800 Lincoln Way, Ames, IA 50010, Phone 515-239-1225; or Robert Rice, Director Public Works Department, Polk County, IA, 5885 NE 14th Street, Des Moines, IA 50313, Phone 515-286-3705.
An electronic copy of this document is available for free download from the Federal Bulletin Board (FBB). The FBB is a free electronic bulletin board service of the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO).
The FBB may be accessed in four ways: (1) Via telephone in dial-up mode or via the Internet through (2) telnet, (3) FTP, and (4) the World Wide Web. For dial-up mode a user needs a personal computer, modem, telecommunications software package, and telephone line. A hard disk is recommended for file transfers.
For Internet access a user needs Internet connectivity. Users can telnet or FTP to:
User assistance for the FBB is available from 7 a.m. until 5 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday (except federal holidays) by calling the GPO Office of Electronic Information Dissemination Services at 202-512-1530, toll-free at 888-293-6498; sending an email to
Access to this notice is also available to Internet users through the
On October 13, 2006 the FHWA, in cooperation with the Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) and Polk County will published an NOI to begin preparation of an EIS to evaluate potential transportation improvement alternatives for serving northwest Des Moines and its neighboring communities between IA 415/NW 26th Street and Euclid Avenue/M.L King Parkway in Des Moines, Iowa. The proposed project is being terminated due to significant and unavoidable impacts to Section 4(f) properties owned by the United Stated Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and project funding.
To ensure that a full range of issues are addressed in relation to the proposed action and that significant issues are identified, interested parties are invited to submit comments and suggestions. Comments or questions concerning the proposed action and the EIS should be directed to the FHWA or Iowa Department of Transportation at the address provided on page one in the section titled
23 U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval and invites public comment. The FMCSA requests approval of a new ICR titled,
Please send your comments by June 29, 2015. OMB must receive your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR.
All comments should reference Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2014-0133. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and sent via electronic mail to
Mr. Michael Gordon, Office of State Programs, Commercial Driver's License Division (MC-ESL),, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 304-549-2651; email
FMCSA estimates that each SDLA would need approximately 40 hours to complete the State Commercial Driver's License Program Plan and submit it to FMCSA. The Program Plan is completed on a one-time basis as required by Section 32305 of MAP-21. There is no continuing information collection function associated with submitting this Program Plan. The Program Plan asks for information which is readily available to the filer.
For the purposes of the CDL program, the District of Columbia is considered a State. Therefore, there are 51 State responses with an estimated 40 hours per response to complete and submit the Program Plan to FMCSA.
The FMCSA estimates the SDLAs total annual burden is 2,040 hours (51 responses × 40 hours = 2,040 hours).
This collection of information supports the DOT strategic goal of safety by requiring the States to assure that drivers of CMVs are properly licensed according to all applicable Federal requirements. States will be required to complete a Commercial Driver's License Program Plan using a spreadsheet or pdf document that will be provided by FMCSA to each SDLA. The spreadsheet has been placed in the FMCSA docket and is available for immediate public consideration at the location
The spreadsheet was developed by FMCSA. The spreadsheet will be sent to each SDLA. The SDLA will complete the spreadsheet and send directly to FMCSA via electronic transmission. FMCSA will then review each plan to assess each State's level of compliance with the CDL requirements. The spreadsheets will then be uploaded into FMCSA's ACRS. Appropriate feedback will be provided from MC-ESL to each State after review.
FMCSA received four comments to the 60-day
The Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles commented that the proposed rule indicates that States will be required to complete a Commercial Driver's License Program Plan using a spreadsheet or pdf document that will be provided by FMCSA to each SDLA. The Plan will be completed by the State and provided to FMCSA's Division via the Automated Compliance Review System (ACRS), for review and concurrence. The Nebraska DMV recommends that the desired information be placed on ACRS for entry by the SDLA in lieu of the paper spreadsheet or pdf document being used. The proposed rule states that FMCSA estimates that each SDLA would need approximately 40 hours to complete the State Commercial Driver's License Program Plan. The Nebraska DMV already spends an inordinate amount of time working on CDL federal requirements. The Nebraska DMV questions the value of a spreadsheet that takes 40 hours to complete as SDLAs have other responsibilities besides the CDL Program. Quantity does not necessarily equate to quality. The proposed rule says that the spreadsheet was developed by FMCSA. However, it is not attached to this proposed rule. The Nebraska DMV suggests that the SDLAs be allowed to comment on the information being gathered and the tool used to gather the information. This promotes a better understanding by the SDLAs in knowing what is needed, why it is needed and may after comments, help FMCSA reduce duplication of information, and understand why the spreadsheet may not be relevant or needed. It is difficult to provide feedback and comments on a document sight unseen.”
The FMCSA agrees with Nebraska's recommendation that the ACRS should be utilized to its fullest capacity to complete the State Plan. The spreadsheet has been placed in the FMCSA docket and is available for immediate public consideration at the location
The FMCSA does not expect it to take 40 hours for each CDL Coordinator to complete the spreadsheet. The estimation was based upon the differences in complexities and extent of compliance deficiencies, the various 51 SDLAs have in regards to the number of existing compliance findings. This estimation is also based upon the consideration that a new CDL Coordinator with limited experience may be completing the spreadsheet. In creating the spreadsheet, FMCSA took into consideration the demands being placed upon the SDLAs and attempted to implement the most efficient and least demanding process to meet the Section 32305 of MAP-21 requirement.
The New York Department of Motor Vehicles stated opinion is that the ICR is unnecessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions in that the information requested to be collected from the Commercial Driver's License Program Plan is already made available to FMCSA via the ACRS System. New York has maintained updates to our audits and annual program review action plans and fails to understand why FMCSA needs states to duplicate information that is already supplied to them.
The New York DMV also commented on the Section 32305 of MAP-21 compliance date of September 30, 2015. New York stated while it is working diligently towards that goal, the deadline is unrealistic, considering the many obstacles New York and the other states face. New York does not understand why a deadline is even essential, in that all of New York's Action Plans listed on ACRS include our estimated completion dates for each project. With FMCSA changing from a 3 year CDL Program Review to an annual review, deficiencies are discovered earlier and therefore, corrected earlier, helping the states to achieve compliance. Over the last six years, FMCSA has published two major rulemakings and numerous smaller rulemakings related to the CDL Program. FMCSA has indicated that more Final rulemakings are to be published within the year. Due to strained fiscal circumstances states have scarce resources, making it difficult to implement the significant number of changes in order to fully comply with all the federal requirements by the regulatory deadline. Both New York's ITS staff that maintain our CDL programs and the DMV business units that administer the programs are severely challenged in complying with the complexity and enormity of federal regulation. At the same time, such staff must continue to serve our many clients, including eleven and a half million licensed drivers, a half million of which hold a CDL. The complexity of the CLP rule is reflected in the monthly CLP Permit Rule Roundtable, where states and the FMCSA discuss issues and concerns about the rule. FMCSA continues to modify its interpretation of the rule. Which causes implementation delays for the states. New York would like to petition for the elimination of a deadline for full State compliance, or if one absolutely needs to be established, an extension of the September 30, 2015, full compliance date, for at a minimum, another year (September 30, 2016). New York is dedicated to fulfilling all the necessary requirements needed to obtain full compliance and we are reiterating that our mission is to make our highways safe for all drivers and for all types of operations. The elimination or extension of the deadline would allow more time for states to ensure the accuracy of all final programming and procedural changes.
The FMCSA notes that the State Plan is in response to the mandated Section 32305 of MAP-21 requirement. The FMCSA understands the information contained within ACRS. This approach and the spreadsheet were developed in such a manner as to not require a State to provide duplicative information that already exists within ACRS, but only reference it. This approach allows the State to provide the assurances required by Section 32305 of MAP-21, that the State will remain in compliance through September 30, 2016.
The FMCSA did not set the deadline for September 30, 2015. This was a Section 32305 of MAP-21 requirement. The FMCSA understands that States have existing action plans that have been approved by FMCSA in ACRS. As previously stated FMCSA has attempted to mitigate redundant work by a State. The FMCSA has created a spreadsheet that allows a State to refer to an existing (approved) action plan within ACRS when referring to a deficiency or finding. The spreadsheet will meet the additional Section 32305 of MAP-21 requirement for a State to provide assurances that they will remain in compliance through September 30, 2016. The FMCSA understands and appreciates the many demands that recent rulemaking have placed upon the states.
The Colorado Department of Revenue stated that it wholeheartedly appreciates and supports FMCSA's mission of promoting highway safety, preventing accidents and getting the bad driver off the road. Colorado also, within reason, agrees with FMCSA's approach of making each SDLA responsible for their
There is no continuing information collection function associated with submitting the Program Plan. What does this mean? Overall, to fully comment on this proposal, Colorado would like a better understanding as to what FMCSA is going to require from the SDLAs regarding what is compliance and what a SDLA will have to do to remain or get into compliance and how long they will have to do so.
When developing the spreadsheet to meet the Section 32305 of MAP-21 requirement, FMCSA decided upon an approach that would limit the amount of duplicity and redundancy of the various FMCSA requirements. The spreadsheet has been placed in the FMCSA docket and is available for immediate public consideration at the location
The North Carolina Department of Transportation stated that it contends that the requirement to submit the CDL Program Plan is redundant since this information is already available to FMCSA on ACRS. This requirement places an additional burden on the states when efforts are needed most to work toward compliance with the regulations.
The FMCSA has developed the spreadsheet to eliminate redundancy and limit the amount of time and effort for each State to complete and to comply with this requirement. In addition, the Section 32305 of MAP-21 requirement for States to provide assurances that they will remain in compliance through September 30, 2016, is not information that is currently available to FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review and approval and invites public comment. The Agency is asking OMB to renew without change FMCSA's estimate of the paperwork burden imposed by its regulations pertaining to the training of certain entry-level drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). Since 2004, FMCSA regulations have prohibited the operation of certain CMVs by individuals with less than 1 year of CMV-driving experience until they obtain this training.
We must receive your comments on or before July 27, 2015.
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System Number FMCSA-2015-0146 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division, Department of Transportation, FMCSA, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, 20590. Telephone: 202-366-4325. Email:
The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA) (49 U.S.C. 31301
In 1985, the FHWA published the “Model Curriculum for Training Tractor-Trailer Drivers.” The FHWA did not mandate driver training at that time. It believed the cost of developing a comprehensive driver-training program was too high in terms of agency resources. This was especially so, FHWA believed, in light of its reasonable expectation that the level of safety of entry level drivers would soon be elevated because (1) the deadline for States to adopt the new mandatory CDL-licensing standards for driver knowledge and skills was still in the future, and (2) many truck driving schools had updated their curricula in light of the new model curriculum (“Truck Safety: Information on Driver Training,” Report of the U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO/RCED-89-163, August 1989, pages 4 and 5).
In 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) (Pub. L. 102-240, December 18, 1991) directed the FHWA to “commence a rulemaking proceeding on the need to require training of all entry-level drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs)” (Section 4007(a)(2)). On June 21, 1993, the FHWA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking entitled, “Commercial Motor Vehicles: Training for All Entry Level Drivers” (58 FR 33874). The Agency also began a study of the effectiveness of the driver training currently being received by entry-level CMV drivers. The results of the study were published in 1997 under the title “Adequacy of Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Training.” The study is available under FMCSA Docket 1997-2199 at the
On August 15, 2003, FMCSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled, “Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators” (68 FR 48863). The Agency proposed mandatory training for operators of CMVs on four topics: driver qualifications, hours-of-service of drivers, driver wellness and whistle-blower protection. The Agency believed that knowledge of these areas would provide the greatest benefit to the safety of CMV operations. On May 21, 2004, FMCSA by final rule prohibited a motor carrier from allowing an entry-level driver to operate a CMV until it received a written certificate indicating that the driver had received training in the four subject areas (69 FR 29384). The rule became effective on July 20, 2004. Training providers were required to provide a certificate to each driver trainee receiving the requisite training.
The Agency is asking OMB to renew without change FMCSA's estimate of the paperwork burden imposed by its regulations. (The Agency is currently conducting a negotiated rulemaking to redesign training for entry-level CMV operators; if the rulemaking amends driver-training requirements, the Agency will submit an estimate of the ICR burden of the requirements for OMB approval).
FRA is issuing this emergency order (EO or Order) to require that the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) take actions to control passenger train speed at certain locations on main line track in the Northeast Corridor (as described by 49 U.S.C. 24905(c)(1)(A)). Amtrak must immediately implement code changes to its Automatic Train Control (ATC) System to enforce the passenger train speed limit ahead of the curve at Frankford Junction in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where a fatal accident occurred on May 12, 2015. Amtrak must also identify each main track curve on the Northeast Corridor where there is a significant reduction (more than 20 miles per hour (mph)) from the maximum authorized approach speed to those curves for passenger trains. Amtrak must then develop and comply with an FRA-approved action plan to modify its existing ATC System or other signal systems (or take alternative operational actions) to enable enforcement of passenger train speed limits at the identified curves. Amtrak must also install additional wayside passenger train speed limit signage at appropriate locations on its Northeast Corridor right-of-way.
Ron Hynes, Director, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, Office of Railroad Safety, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 493-6404; Joseph St. Peter, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 493-6047,
FRA has determined that public safety compels issuance of this EO. This determination is made in light of the Amtrak train derailment that occurred in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on May 12, 2015, in which eight persons were killed and a significant number of others were seriously injured. While the cause of the accident has not yet been determined, preliminary investigation into this derailment indicates the train was traveling approximately 106 mph on a curve where the maximum authorized passenger train speed is 50 mph. This was a serious overspeed event and FRA has concluded that additional action is necessary in the form of this EO to eliminate an immediate hazard of death, personal injury, or significant harm to the environment.
Authority to enforce Federal railroad safety laws has been delegated by the Secretary of Transportation to the Administrator of FRA. 49 CFR 1.89 and internal delegations. Railroads are subject to FRA's safety jurisdiction under the Federal railroad safety laws. 49 U.S.C. 20101, 20103. FRA is authorized to issue emergency orders where an unsafe condition or practice “causes an emergency situation involving a hazard of death, personal injury, or significant harm to the environment.” 49 U.S.C. 20104. These orders may immediately impose “restrictions and prohibitions . . . that may be necessary to abate the situation.”
On Tuesday, May 12, 2015, Amtrak passenger train 188 (Train 188) was traveling timetable east (northbound) from Washington, DC, to New York City. Aboard the train were five crew members and approximately 238 passengers. Train 188 consisted of a conventional set-up with a locomotive in the lead and seven passenger cars trailing. Shortly after 9:20 p.m., the train derailed while traveling through a curve in the track at Frankford Junction in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. As a result of the accident, eight people were killed, and a significant number of people were seriously injured.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has taken the lead role conducting the investigation of this accident under its legal authority. 49 U.S.C. 1101
Upon evaluating the Amtrak accident described above, FRA found similarities to an accident that occurred in December 2013, on the New York State Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company (Metro-North) track. The Metro-North accident was the subject of FRA's Emergency Order No. 29. 78 FR 75442, Dec. 11, 2013. That accident occurred when a Metro-North passenger train was traveling south toward Grand Central Terminal in New York City. The train traveled over a straightaway with a maximum authorized passenger train speed of 70 mph before reaching a sharp curve in the track with a maximum authorized speed of 30 mph. NTSB's investigation of the Metro-North accident determined the train was traveling approximately 82 mph as it entered the curve's 30-mph speed
Amtrak's passenger trains are normally operated with only one crewmember in the cab of a passenger train's locomotive. Amtrak's controlling locomotives are typically equipped with an alerter to help ensure the attentiveness of the locomotive engineer operating the train. Amtrak's locomotive controls and its signal systems also incorporate an ATC System, which is a train speed control system where trains are automatically slowed or stopped if a locomotive engineer fails to comply with signal indication or is otherwise unable to take action to slow a train. The ATC system is used to enforce compliance with certain signal indications in a particular territory, but it is not typically used to enforce civil passenger train speed restrictions that are below the maximum authorized operating speed for the broader territory. However, Amtrak's ATC System is capable of being used in a manner to enforce civil speed restrictions that are below the maximum authorized operating speed in some situations. This is accomplished by installing a code change point at or near the location where the speed restriction is to be enforced. As mentioned above, Amtrak's existing ATC System is not currently coded to slow trains to comply with applicable speed limits in all circumstances, and such coding may not be operationally feasible in all instances.
In light of the May 12 derailment that is the subject of this Order, and in an effort to immediately prevent similar incidents from occurring that could result in an emergency situation involving a hazard of death, personal injury, or significant harm to the environment, in this Order FRA is requiring Amtrak take certain immediate actions. First, FRA is ordering Amtrak to implement code changes to its ATC System near the Frankford Junction curve in Philadelphia where the May 12 accident occurred in the timetable east (northbound) direction. The changes implemented must provide enforcement of the relevant passenger train speed limit of 50 mph for passenger trains approaching that curve. Amtrak has already completed actions to implement such changes.
Next, Amtrak must identify all other main track curves on the Northeast Corridor where there is a significant reduction (more than 20 mph) in the authorized passenger train approach speed upon the approach to those curves. After identifying such curves, Amtrak must develop and submit to FRA for review and approval an action plan to make appropriate code modifications to its existing ATC System or other signal systems to enable warning and enforcement of relevant passenger train speed restrictions. This requirement does not apply to portions of the Northeast Corridor where Amtrak's operations are governed by a Positive Train Control (PTC) system that is in use. To the extent that other railroads operate passenger trains at the same maximum authorized speeds as Amtrak in the curves affected by this Order, the modifications Amtrak makes to its ATC System or signal systems must also enforce the relevant speed restrictions for those trains.
If such code changes at identified curves will interfere with the timely implementation of PTC or are otherwise not viable, Amtrak must identify other actions it will take to ensure compliance with speed reductions (
FRA notes that other railroads have coded their ATC systems to prevent overspeed events from occurring at locations where there are civil or other speed restrictions. FRA's Emergency Order No. 29, issued after the December 2013 accident discussed above, required Metro-North to take similar actions in response to that accident. FRA is ordering Amtrak to take similar steps to prevent accidents similar to the May 12, 2015, accident from occurring in the future if a locomotive engineer fails (or is otherwise unable) to take action to appropriately slow or stop a passenger train.
In addition to the above requirements, Amtrak must also enhance speed restriction signage along its rights-of-way on the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak must identify in the action plan it submits to FRA the locations at which it intends to install such additional signage, and provide notice to FRA when such additional signage has been installed. Increasing the amount and frequency of signage provides a redundant means to remind engineers and conductors of the authorized speed, in addition to information they receive from the ATC System and operational documents such as timetable or bulletin.
FRA recognizes that Amtrak has been diligent in implementing PTC on the Northeast Corridor by December 31, 2015, as required by section 104 of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. (Pub. L. 110-432, Division A, 122 Stat. 4848, 4856 (49 U.S.C. 20157)). Amtrak has indicated that it intends to meet the RSIA's statutory deadline to install PTC on the Northeast Corridor. Once in use, the PTC system will enforce the speed restriction at the curve where the May 12, 2015, accident occurred, but the interim action of implementing the code change in the ATC System, as required by this EO, will provide overspeed derailment protection until the PTC system is in use. As discussed above, Amtrak has already taken action to enforce appropriate passenger train speed limits near the curve where the May 12, 2015, accident occurred prior to its resumption of passenger train service, and plans to take similar actions at certain other locations on the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak also has stated it intends to increase radar checks, locomotive event recorder downloads, and efficiency tests aimed at ensuring compliance with relevant speed restrictions. Finally, Amtrak intends to hold listening sessions with its employees to learn about, and address, any additional safety concerns.
Nonetheless, due to the significant safety concerns presented by the May 12, 2015, accident, FRA believes immediate enforceable action is necessary to address the emergency situation that contributed to that derailment. FRA will continue to review additional actions to address safety concerns on the Nation's passenger rail systems as its investigation into the May 12, 2015, derailment continues. FRA will revisit the necessity of the requirements in this Order upon reviewing Amtrak's actions taken to comply with the EO, or upon PTC systems governing Amtrak's operations
FRA recognizes that passenger rail transportation is generally extremely safe. However, FRA finds that the recent May 12, 2015, accident on Amtrak, and the lack of overspeed protections in place at certain locations on Amtrak's system, create an emergency situation involving a hazard of death, personal injury, or significant harm to the environment. Accordingly, under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 20104, delegated to the Administrator of FRA by the Secretary of Transportation, 49 CFR 1.89 and internal delegations, it is hereby ordered that:
1. Amtrak must immediately implement code changes to its ATC System or other signal systems near the Frankford Junction curve in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania where the fatal May 12, 2015, accident occurred. The changes must enforce the passenger train speed limit of 50 mph for timetable east (northbound) trains approaching that curve.
2. Amtrak must survey its main line track system located on the Northeast Corridor (as described by 49 U.S.C. 24905(c)(1)(A)) and identify each main track curve where there is a reduction of more than 20 mph from the maximum authorized approach speed to that curve for passenger trains, and provide a list of each location to the FRA Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety and Chief Safety Officer (Associate Administrator) within 5 days of the date of this Order. For purposes of compliance with this Order, the speed reductions of more than 20 mph that existed on the date of the issuance of this Order apply.
3. After identifying the curves above, Amtrak shall develop and submit to FRA for approval an action plan that accomplishes each of the following:
a. Identifies appropriate modifications to Amtrak's existing ATC System or other signal systems that Amtrak will make to enable warning and enforcement of applicable passenger train speeds at the identified curves. If such coding changes will interfere with the timely implementation of a PTC system or are not otherwise feasible, Amtrak's plan must describe why such changes are not feasible and may describe alternative operating procedures that it will adopt at the identified curves to ensure compliance with applicable speed reductions.
b. Contains milestones and target dates for implementing each identified modification to Amtrak's existing ATC System or other signal systems (or alternative operational changes) to enable warning and enforcement of passenger train speeds at the identified curves.
4. Amtrak must submit the action plan to the Associate Administrator within 20 days of the date of this Order. FRA will review and approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove Amtrak's action plan within 15 days of the plan's submission to FRA. Once FRA approves its action plan, Amtrak must make all identified modifications to the existing ATC System or other signal systems (or alternative operational changes) in the timeframes and manner that complies with all conditions FRA places on its approval of Amtrak's action plan.
5. As soon as possible, but not later than 30 days after the date of this Order, Amtrak must begin to install additional wayside signage alerting engineers and conductors of the maximum authorized passenger train speed throughout its Northeast Corridor system, with particular emphasis on additional signage at the curve locations where speed reductions implicated by this Order must occur. Amtrak must identify the locations where it intends to install the additional wayside speed limit signs in the action plan submitted under paragraphs 3 and 4 above, and must notify the Associate Administrator upon the completion of the installation of those signs.
Nothing in this Order precludes FRA from using any of the other enforcement tools available to the agency under its regulatory authority to address non-compliance with the Federal railroad safety laws, regulations, and orders by Amtrak. If necessary, FRA may issue additional emergency orders or compliance orders, impose civil penalties against Amtrak (including individuals who may be liable for civil penalties for willful violations of the Federal railroad safety laws and regulations), or disqualify individuals from performing safety-sensitive functions.
Amtrak, or any other passenger railroad affected by this Order, may petition for special approval to take actions not in accordance with this EO. Petitions must be submitted to the Associate Administrator, who is authorized to act on those requests without amending this EO. In reviewing any petition for special review, the Associate Administrator shall grant petitions only if the petitioner has clearly articulated an alternative action that will provide, in the Associate Administrator's judgment, at least a level of safety equivalent to that provided by compliance with this EO.
Any violation of this EO shall subject the person committing the violation to a civil penalty of up to $105,000. 49 U.S.C. 21301. Any individual who willfully violates a provision stated in this order is subject to civil penalties under 49 U.S.C. 21301. In addition, any individual whose violation of this order demonstrates the individual's unfitness for safety-sensitive service may be removed from safety-sensitive service on the railroad under 49 U.S.C. 20111. If appropriate, FRA may pursue criminal penalties under 49 U.S.C. 522(a) and 49 U.S.C. 21311(a), as well as 18 U.S.C. 1001, for the knowing and willful falsification of a report required by this Order. FRA may, through the Attorney General, also seek injunctive relief to enforce this Order. 49 U.S.C. 20112.
This EO is effective upon Amtrak's receipt of an electronic copy, and Amtrak shall immediately initiate steps to implement this Order to comply with the Order's deadlines.
Opportunity for formal review of this EO will be provided under 49 U.S.C. 20104(b) and 5 U.S.C. 554. Administrative procedures governing such review are at 49 CFR part 211.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), United States Department of Transportation (USDOT).
Notice.
FRA hereby gives notice that it is submitting the following Information Collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget
A copy of this individual ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by telephoning FRA's Office of Safety Clearance Officer: Robert Brogan (tel. (202) 493-6292) or FRA's Office of Administration Clearance Officer: Kimberly Toone (tel. (202) 493-6132) (these numbers are not toll-free); or by contacting Mr. Brogan via facsimile at (202) 493-6216 or Ms. Toone via facsimile at (202) 493-6497, or via email by contacting Mr. Brogan at
FRA is issuing Emergency Order No. 31 (EO or Order) to require that the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) take actions to control passenger train speed at certain locations on main line track in the Northeast Corridor (as defined by 49 U.S.C. 24905(c)(1)(A)). Amtrak must immediately implement code changes to its Automatic Train Control (ATC) System to enforce the passenger train speed limit ahead of the curve at Frankford Junction in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where a fatal accident occurred on May 12, 2015. Amtrak must also identify all other curves on the Northeast Corridor where there is a significant reduction (more than 20 miles per hour (mph)) from the maximum authorized approach speed to those curves for passenger trains. Amtrak must then develop and comply with an FRA-approved action plan to modify its existing ATC System or other signal systems (or take alternative operational actions) to enable enforcement of passenger train speeds at the identified curves. Amtrak must also install additional wayside passenger train speed limit signage at appropriate locations on its Northeast Corridor right-of-way.
Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 320.5(b), 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before June 29, 2015.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2015-0067. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Linda Williams, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453,
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel MARTHA R is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2015-0067 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
On February 19, 2015, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) published a notice in the
During the 60-day comment period, PHMSA received no comments in response to this collection. PHMSA is publishing this notice to provide the public with an additional 30 days to comment on the renewal of this information collection and announce that the information collection will be submitted to OMB for approval.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 29, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments identified by the docket number PHMSA-2015-0009 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Requests for a copy of the Information Collection should be directed to Cameron Satterthwaite by telephone at 202-366-1319, by fax at 202-366-4566, by email at
Angela Dow by telephone at 202-366-1246, by fax at 202-366-4566, or by mail at DOT, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., PHP-30, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
The following information is provided for this information collection: (1) Abstract for the affected annual report form; (2) title of the information collection; (3) OMB control number; (4) affected annual report form; (5) description of affected public; (6) estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden; and (7) frequency of collection. PHMSA will request a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity.
PHMSA requests comments on the following information collection:
(a) The need for the proposed collection of information for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. I), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Board of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC), to be held from 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. (EDT) on Tuesday, June 16, 2015 via conference call at the SLSDC's Policy Headquarters, 55 M Street SE., Suite 930, Washington, DC 20003. The agenda for this meeting will be as follows: Opening Remarks; Consideration of Minutes of Past Meeting; Quarterly Report; Old and New Business; Closing Discussion; Adjournment.
Attendance at the meeting is open to the interested public but limited to the space available. With the approval of the Administrator, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing further information should contact, not later than Thursday, June 11, 2015, Carrie Lavigne, Chief Counsel, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 180 Andrews Street, Massena, NY 13662; 315-764-3231.
Any member of the public may present a written statement to the Advisory Board at any time.
Announcement of Charter Renewal for the National Freight Advisory Committee.
This notice announces renewal of National Freight Advisory Committee's charter for a period of 1 year (NFAC), effective May 28, 2015. The NFAC will provide information, advice, and recommendations to the U.S. Secretary of Transportation on matters relating to U.S. freight transportation.
Maria Lefevre, Designated Federal Officer at (202) 366-1999 or
Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), DOT is giving notice of the charter renewal for the NFAC. The NFAC is established under the authority of the U.S. Department of Transportation, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). The NFAC shall continue to undertake information-gathering activities, develop technical advice, and present recommendations to the Secretary to further inform this policy, including but not limited to implementation of the freight provisions of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Public Law 112-141, and other issues of freight transportation policy and programs, including legislative recommendations. The NFAC is composed of up to 50 members representing diverse modes of transportation; regional representation across the Nation; relevant policy areas such as safety, labor, environment; freight customers and providers; and government bodies. The diversity of the Committee ensures the requisite range of views and expertise necessary to fulfill its responsibilities.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB); Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we invite comments on the proposed or continuing information collections listed below in this notice.
We must receive your written comments on or before July 27, 2015.
As described below, you may send comments on the information collections listed in this document using the “Regulations.gov” online comment form for this document, or you may send written comments via U.S. mail or hand delivery. TTB no longer accepts public comments via email or fax.
•
•
•
Please submit separate comments for each specific information collection listed in this document. You must reference the information collection's title, form or recordkeeping requirement number, and OMB number (if any) in your comment.
You may view copies of this document, the information collections listed in it and any associated instructions, and all comments received in response to this document within Docket No. TTB-2015-0001 at
Michael Hoover, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; telephone 202-453-1039, ext. 135; or email
The Department of the Treasury and its Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), as part of their continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed or continuing information collections listed below in this notice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be included or summarized in our request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the relevant information collection. All comments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Please do not include any confidential or inappropriate material in your comments.
We invite comments on: (a) Whether this information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the information collection's burden; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the information collection's burden on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide the requested information.
Currently, we are seeking comments on the following forms, recordkeeping requirements, or questionnaires:
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of five individuals and one entity whose property and interests in property have been blocked pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Kingpin Act) (21 U.S.C. 1901-1908, 8 U.S.C. 1182).
The designation by the Director of OFAC of the five individuals and one entity identified in this notice pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act is effective on May 21, 2015.
Assistant Director, Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220, Tel: (202) 622-2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's Web site at
The Kingpin Act became law on December 3, 1999. The Kingpin Act establishes a program targeting the activities of significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis. It provides a statutory framework for the imposition of sanctions against significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis, with the objective of denying their businesses and agents access to the U.S. financial system and the benefits of trade and transactions involving U.S. companies and individuals.
The Kingpin Act blocks all property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, owned or controlled by significant foreign narcotics traffickers as identified by the President. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, may designate and block the property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, of persons who are found to be: (1) Materially assisting in, or providing financial or technological support for or to, or providing goods or services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; (2) owned, controlled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; or (3) playing a significant role in international narcotics trafficking.
On May 21, 2015 the Director of OFAC designated the following five individuals and one entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act.
1. BEATTIE DE BRIONES, Myriam Susana (a.k.a. BEATTIE BRIONES, Myriam Susana; a.k.a. BEATTIE MARTINEZ, Myriam Susana), Calle Segunda y Canales No. 10, Zona Centro, Matamoros, Tamaulipas, Mexico; DOB 17 Oct 1978; POB Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico; R.F.C. BESM781017MY2 (Mexico); alt. R.F.C. BESM781017HV1 (Mexico); alt. R.F.C. BESM781017162 (Mexico); C.U.R.P. BEMM781017MNLTRY05 (Mexico); I.F.E. 0539041296164 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK].
2. BRIONES RUIZ, Claudia Aide, Calle Bustamante 19 y 20, No. 187, Zona Centro, Matamoros, Tamaulipas 87300, Mexico; DOB 01 Oct 1981; POB Matamoros, Tamaulipas, Mexico; R.F.C. BIRC811001A56 (Mexico); C.U.R.P. BIRC811001MTSRZL05 (Mexico); I.F.E. 0516041106955 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK].
3. BRIONES RUIZ, Abel, Calle Bustamante No. 187, Matamoros, Tamaulipas, Mexico; DOB 31 Oct 1973; POB Matamoros, Tamaulipas, Mexico; R.F.C. BIRA731031BU4 (Mexico); C.U.R.P. BIRA731031HTSRZB03 (Mexico); I.F.E. 05116040222575 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK].
4. NIETO GONZALEZ, Rogelio; DOB 13 Mar 1978; POB Matamoros, Tamaulipas, Mexico; R.F.C. NIGR780313JK2 (Mexico); C.U.R.P. NIGR780313HTSTNG02 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK].
5. RUIZ DE BRIONES, Magdalena (a.k.a. RUIZ CARRION, Magdalena); DOB 01 Jul 1950; POB Matamoros, Tamaulipas, Mexico; R.F.C. RUBM50070167A (Mexico); alt. R.F.C. RUCM500701513 (Mexico); C.U.R.P. RUCM500701MTSZRG01 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK].
1. COMBUSTIBLES BRIONES, S.A. DE C.V., Carr. a Reynosa Km 21, Tamaulipas, Mexico [SDNTK].
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is
Written comments should be received on or before July 27, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Christie A. Preston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Notice 2015-XX, Procedures for Requesting a Waiver of the Electronic Filing Requirements for Form 8955-SSA and Form 5500-EZ.
Written comments should be received on or before July 27, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Christie Preston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Allan Hopkins at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). The IRS is soliciting comments concerning information collection requirements related to amortization of intangible property.
Written comments should be received on or before July 27, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Christie Preston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Kerry Dennis at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Inspection of Applications for Tax Exemption and Applications for Determination Letters for Pension and Other Plans.
Written comments should be received on or before July 27, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Christie A. Preston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning qualified electing fund elections.
Written comments should be received on or before July 27, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Christie Preston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of this regulation should be directed to Allan Hopkins, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice; correction
The Internal Revenue Service published a document in the
The LITC Program Office at (202) 317-4700 (not a toll-free number) or by email at
In the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS); Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division, Treasury.
Notice.
The Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and Government Entities (ACT) will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, June 17, 2015.
Tanya Barbosa, TE/GE Communications and Liaison; 1111 Constitution Ave. NW.; SE:T:CL—NCA 534-18; Washington, DC 20224. Telephone: 202-317-8514 (not a toll-free number). Email address:
By notice herein given, pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988), a public meeting of the ACT will be held on Wednesday, June 17, 2015, from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., at the Internal Revenue Service; 1111 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 3313, Washington, DC. Issues to be discussed relate to Employee Plans, Exempt Organizations, and Government Entities. Reports from five ACT subgroups cover the following topics:
Last minute agenda changes may preclude advance notice. Due to limited seating and security requirements, attendees must call Brian Dowling to confirm their attendance. Mr. Dowling can be reached at (202) 317-8798, or email attendance request to
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Proposed rule.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement the Executive Order “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces”, which is designed to improve contractor compliance with labor laws and increase efficiency and cost savings in Federal contracting. The Executive Order (E.O.) requires that prospective and existing contractors disclose certain labor violations and that contracting officers, in consultation with labor compliance advisors, consider the disclosures, including any mitigating circumstances, as part of their decision to award or extend a contract. The E.O. directs agencies to include clauses in their contracts that require similar disclosures by certain subcontractors so their prime contractors can also consider labor violations when determining the responsibility of subcontractors. The E.O. further requires that processes be established to assist contractors and subcontractors to come into compliance with labor laws. To achieve paycheck transparency for workers, the E.O. requires contractors and subcontractors to provide individuals with information each pay period regarding how they are paid and to provide notice to those workers whom they treat as independent contractors. The E.O. also addresses arbitration of employee claims. This proposed rule, and proposed Guidance being issued simultaneously by the Department of Labor (DOL), are intended to implement the E.O.'s requirements.
Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat at one of the addresses shown below on or before July 27, 2015 to be considered in the formation of the final rule.
Submit comments in response to FAR Case 2014-025 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Edward Loeb, Procurement Analyst, at 202-501-0650, for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202-501-4755. Please cite FAR Case 2014-025.
This proposed rule implements E.O. 13673, Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces, dated July 31, 2014 (79 FR 45309, August 5, 2014). E.O. 13673 was amended by E.O. 13683, December 11, 2014 (79 FR 75041, December 16, 2014) to correct a statutory citation. The policy of the Government is to promote economy and efficiency in procurement by awarding contracts to contractors that comply with labor laws. Contractors that consistently adhere to labor laws are more likely to have workplace practices that enhance productivity and increase the likelihood of timely, predictable and satisfactory delivery of goods and services to the Federal Government.
It is a longstanding tenet of Federal procurement that before a Federal contract is awarded, a contracting officer must determine that the contractor is a responsible source to do business with the Federal Government. The FAR makes clear that in order to be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must “have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.” Underlying the FAR's responsibility requirements is the basic recognition that the Federal procurement process works more efficiently and economically when Federal contractors comply with applicable laws, including labor laws. As section 1 of the E.O. explains, contractors that consistently adhere to labor laws are more likely to have workplace practices that enhance productivity and to deliver goods and services to the Federal Government in a timely, predictable, and satisfactory fashion.
In recent years, the Administration and Congress have taken a number of steps to strengthen the quality of responsibility determinations generally as well as the overall integrity of the Federal procurement system. These steps have included:
• Deployment of the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)—a one-stop online source for data to support contracting officers as they determine whether a company has the requisite integrity to do business with the Government;
• Promulgation of a new regulatory requirement that offerors state in certain situations whether they have had criminal, civil, or administrative violations within the past 5 years; and
• Direction to agencies to take steps to strengthen their capability to take suspension and debarment actions when necessary to protect the Government from harm.
These important steps have helped the Government make meaningful progress in its efforts to protect taxpayers from waste and abuse and reinforce public confidence in the Federal procurement system. However, agencies would benefit from additional information about labor violations in order to better determine if a potential contractor is a responsible source. For example, many labor violations, including ones that are serious, willful, repeated, or pervasive, may go unreported despite the contractor self-certification described above and found at FAR 52.209-7, because (i) the current penalty triggers for reporting labor violations in FAPIIS may be higher than the penalties associated with individual labor violations; (ii) a contractor is not required to report if it doesn't currently have at least $10 million in contract actions; and (iii) administrative proceedings required to be reported are limited to those in connection with performance of a Federal contract or grant. Even if information regarding labor violations is made available to the agency, contracting officers lack the expertise and tools to efficiently and effectively evaluate the severity of the violations brought to their attention and
Gaps in current regulatory coverage on labor compliance have been discussed in several reports issued over the past several years looking at labor violations by Federal contractors. GAO issued a report (GAO-10-1033, “FEDERAL CONTRACTING: Assessments and Citations of Federal Labor Law Violations by Selected Federal Contractors,” dated September 2010,
To improve contractor compliance with labor laws and the consideration of labor violations of Federal contractors and subcontractors, E.O. 13673 directs that the following steps be incorporated into existing procurement processes:
•
•
•
Consistent with the E.O., these changes are being implemented through proposed regulations by DoD, GSA and NASA that are informed by proposed Guidance issued by DOL entitled “Guidance for Executive Order 13673, `Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces' ” (Guidance). DOL's Guidance focuses on defining labor violations and how to determine whether a labor violation is reportable, what information about labor violations must be disclosed, how to analyze the severity of labor violations, and the role of ALCAs, and of DOL and other enforcement agencies, in addressing violations. The FAR rule incorporates DOL's Guidance and further delineates, through policy statements, solicitation provisions, and contract clauses how, when, and to whom disclosures are to be made and the responsibilities of contracting officers and contractors in addressing violations. The FAR rule, consistent with the DOL Guidance, describes the role of ALCAs, DOL and other enforcement agencies in supporting contracting officers and contractors in making responsibility determinations before award and addressing violations that occur during contract performance. In addition, the FAR rule addresses the ability of contractors and subcontractors to work with DOL and enforcement agencies to facilitate remediation measures, such as labor compliance agreements, and states that Suspending and Debarring Officials should be notified in accordance with agency procedures if a contracting officer concludes that a prospective contractor does not have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.
Specifically:
• With respect to making disclosures, the DOL Guidance defines the terms “administrative merits determination,” “civil judgment,” and “arbitral award or decision,” for each of the fourteen enumerated labor laws and discusses what information related to these determinations must be reported by contractors and subcontractors. The FAR rule creates solicitation provisions and contract clauses that will include these disclosure triggers and explain when the required information described in the DOL Guidance is to be submitted, how it is to be submitted, and to whom it is to be submitted.
Offerors must represent for each solicitation whether they have covered labor violations. They complete the annual representations and certifications in the System for Award Management (SAM), and later in each solicitation identify if the SAM representations are still current. Offerors need not provide information on specific violations (such as the case number, the date rendered, or who made the determination or decision) until requested by the contracting officer, which will occur when a responsibility determination is being made. When asked for the additional required information, the prospective contractor will also be invited to provide to the contracting officer such additional information as the prospective contractor deems necessary to demonstrate its responsibility,
• The DOL Guidance also explains when violations should be considered serious, willful, repeated, or pervasive,
• Regarding assistance, DOL's Guidance explains how contractors and subcontractors can get help from DOL, including the opportunity to receive early guidance from DOL and other enforcement agencies on whether violations are potentially problematic, as well as the opportunity to remedy any problems. The FAR clauses promulgated in this rule address the contractor's ability to communicate with DOL and the requirement for contracting officers to give appropriate consideration to remedial measures or mitigating factors, including any agreements by contractors or other corrective action taken to address violations.
By coordinating their actions, DoD, GSA, and NASA, and DOL seek to create a comprehensive process that is reasonable and manageable, and avoids uncertainty that drives up the cost of doing business with the Government. In addition, consistent with the E.O., this proposed rule seeks to minimize implementation burden for contractors and subcontractors in a number of ways.
• The rule, like the E.O., builds on the existing procurement system, and adopts existing processes that help to minimize burden, such as by allowing agencies to limit the required disclosure of the details of violations to offerors for whom a responsibility determination has been initiated.
• Disclosure requirements are limited to contracts over $500,000 and subcontracts over $500,000 other than COTS items, which excludes the vast majority of transactions (many of which are performed by small businesses), while still capturing the vast majority of contract dollars.
• As explained in DOL's Guidance, the focus of analysis is on those violations that are most concerning and have the greatest bearing on an assessment of a contractor's or subcontractor's integrity and business ethics. As a result, most disclosures, such as minor violations of workplace safety and wage-and-hour requirements, should not trigger specific actions beyond those that would otherwise be directed by DOL or the contracting agency to correct the violation. Where action is required, the focus will be on helping the contractor come into compliance, and taking mitigating steps which may include the development of a labor compliance agreement.
• As explained in DOL's Guidance, contractors and subcontractors will be able to engage with DOL and enforcement agencies early in the process when contractors or subcontractors know that they have violations that may require remediation, so that the results of those engagements can be used by contracting officers to help determine responsibility, and used by contractors to help determine responsibility of subcontractors, without having these steps unnecessarily disrupt the procurement process.
• ALCAs will be appointed by agencies to assist agency contracting officers and coordinate with DOL. As indicated in DOL's Guidance, DOL will create processes that facilitate coordination between ALCAs and DOL so that they may give appropriate consideration to determinations and agreements made by DOL and other enforcement agencies as well as analyses of disclosures that have previously been made by an ALCA. This coordination will help to reduce burden for both contractors and agencies by avoiding redundant, inconsistent, and time consuming evaluations. In accordance with the express terms of the E.O., disclosures are only required for subcontracts with an estimated value over $500,000 other than COTS items.
• DoD, GSA, and NASA, and DOL are proposing to implement the changes addressing subcontracting in phases and seek public input on a phased approach. See section IV. A. Phase-in of Subcontractor Requirements.
• Efforts are underway to develop a single Web site for Federal contractors to use for Federal contract reporting requirements related to labor laws, as well as other reporting requirements as practicable so that compliance is as easy and efficient for businesses as possible.
While the focus of the E.O. is on helping contractors come into compliance, there may be instances where a contractor's actions show a lack of business ethics and integrity that warrants notification to the agency's Suspending and Debarring Official. This could include situations where a disclosure shows a basic disregard for labor laws and an unwillingness to come into compliance, as may be demonstrated by a pattern of serious or willful violations, continuing violations, or numerous violations (which the proposed DOL Guidance collectively labels as “pervasive violations”), with no effort to remediate. Such actions will be subject to careful review. If the Suspending and Debarring Official is notified, such actions shall be subject to review, and if suspension and debarment is necessary, the contractor will be given notice and reasonable opportunity to present facts or arguments in support of its position, in accordance with longstanding principles of fundamental fairness set forth in the FAR.
In addition to the new requirements to improve labor compliance, the rule addresses requirements in the E.O. to ensure workers are given the necessary information each pay period to verify the accuracy of what they are paid. The proposed rule recognizes that a contractor would be in compliance if it provides a worker with a wage statement that complies with a state law whose wage statement laws are substantially similar to the E.O's wage statement requirements (as specified in DOL's Guidance).
Finally, the proposed rule would implement the E.O.'s requirement that contractors and subcontractors who enter into contracts for non-commercial items over $1 million agree not to enter into any mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreement with their employees or independent contractors on any matter arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as well as any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment.
Additional detail on the requirements of the E.O. and how the above steps are reflected in provisions and clauses in the proposed rule are discussed below in section II. “Background and Implementation of the E.O.”
E.O. 13673 seeks to increase efficiency and cost savings in the work performed by parties that contract with the Federal Government by ensuring that they understand and comply with labor laws. A number of the E.O.'s requirements are addressed in this proposed rule, including the following:
Section 2 of the E.O. contains contractor disclosure requirements designed to provide contracting officers pertinent information to consider in making responsibility determinations, which will improve contracting officers' ability to award contracts to contractors that have a satisfactory record of
Section 2(a)(i) of the E.O. establishes that offerors on a contract estimated to exceed $500,000 must represent whether there has been any administrative merits determination, arbitral award or decision, or civil judgment, (as defined in DOL Guidance entitled: “Guidance for Executive Order 13673, `Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces' ”), rendered against the offeror, within a three year period preceding the offer, for violations of any of the enumerated labor laws.
Section 2(a)(ii) of the E.O. provides that a contracting officer, as part of the contractor responsibility determination, will provide an opportunity for a prospective contractor to disclose any steps taken to correct the violations of or to improve compliance with the labor laws, including any agreements entered into with an enforcement agency.
Section 3 of the E.O. requires each agency to designate a senior agency official to be an agency labor compliance advisor (ALCA) to assist contracting officers, contractors, the DOL and other relevant enforcement agencies in reviewing and evaluating disclosed information. The ALCA, may also assist subcontractors by referring them to the appropriate DOL office. DOL, as stated in its “Guidance for Executive Order 13673, `Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces' ”, plans to set up a structure within DOL to consult with ALCAs in carrying out their responsibilities and duties and to be available to consult with contractors and subcontractors.
Section 4 of the E.O. requires DoD, GSA, and NASA, in consultation with DOL, the Office of Management and Budget, and enforcement agencies to identify considerations for determining whether serious, repeated, willful, or pervasive violations of the enumerated labor laws demonstrate a lack of integrity or business ethics. DOL is responsible for developing guidance to assist agencies in determining whether administrative merits determinations, arbitral awards or decisions, or civil judgments were issued for serious, repeated, willful, or pervasive violations.
Section 5 of the E.O. addresses paycheck transparency in Federal contracts by requiring that contractors provide individuals performing work under the contract for whom they must maintain wage records under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 40 U.S.C. chapter 31, subchapter IV, Wage Rate Requirements (Construction), formerly known as the Davis-Bacon Act, 41 U.S.C. chapter 67, Service Contract Labor Standards, formerly known as the Service Contract Act, or equivalent state laws with a document with basic information about their hours and wages so that individuals will know if they are being paid properly for work performed. In addition, when contractors are treating an individual as an independent contractor, rather than an employee, the contractor must provide a document stating this to the individual.
Section 6 of the E.O. provides that for contracts estimated to exceed $1,000,000, employees and independent contractors of contractors may not be required to enter into pre-dispute arbitration agreements for disputes arising out of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act or from torts related to sexual assault or harassment.
Section 10 of the E.O. states that the E.O. became effective upon signature, and applies to solicitations for contracts as set forth in the FAR final rule.
The rule proposes to add FAR subpart 22.20, Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces. FAR 22.2002 adds definitions. FAR 22.2004 summarizes the E.O. section 2 disclosure requirements. FAR 22.2005 implements the E.O. section 5 paycheck transparency requirements. FAR 22.2006 implements the E.O. section 6 complaint and dispute transparency requirements.
DoD, GSA, and NASA, in formulating the proposed rule and in consultation with DOL, considered the Guidance DOL has proposed in accordance with Section 4 of the E.O. DoD, GSA, and NASA has identified and prescribed in the proposed rule specifically when, and in what manner, the DOL Guidance must be read and utilized to effectively implement the E.O.
FAR 22.2002 adds definitions, which also appear at 52.222-BB Compliance with Labor Laws. Definitions of the terms “administrative merits determination,” “agency labor compliance advisor,” “arbitral award or decision,” “civil judgment,” “DOL Guidance,” “enforcement agency,” “labor compliance agreement,” “labor laws,” “labor violation,” “pervasive violation,” “repeated violation,” “serious violation,” and “willful violation” appear in FAR 22.2002 and in the clause at FAR 52.222-BB, Compliance with Labor Laws.
The definition of “labor laws” is derived from the E.O and includes the following statutes and E.O.s:
The proposed rule definitions of “administrative merits determination,” “arbitral award or decision,” “civil judgment,” “pervasive violation,” “repeated violation,” “serious violation,” and “willful violation” are based on DOL's Guidance. The definitions of these terms may vary based on the labor law to which they apply. Therefore, the definitions in the DOL Guidance must be read in their entirety in implementing the E.O.
In addition to defining terms, the DOL Guidance explains how to evaluate reported violations (considering whether the violations are serious, repeated, willful, or pervasive); review remediation of the violation(s) and any other mitigating factors; determine if the violations identified warrant remedial measures; and give appropriate consideration to determinations and agreements between contractors and DOL or other enforcement agencies, such as a labor compliance agreement. The DOL Guidance for E.O. 13673, “Fair Pay and Safe Work Places” must also be read in its entirety to successfully implement the E.O. and when finalized, will be available at
Section 3 of the E.O. requires each contracting agency to designate a senior agency official to be an ALCA to provide consistent guidance on whether contractors' actions rise to the level of a lack of integrity or business ethics. ALCAs, in consultation with DOL and other agencies responsible for enforcing labor laws, will help contracting officers to do the following:
• Review information regarding violations reported by contractors;
• Assess whether reported violations are serious, repeated, willful, or pervasive;
• Review the contractor's remediation of the violation and any other mitigating factors; and,
• Determine if the violations identified warrant remedial measures, such as a labor compliance agreement—
Proposed FAR sections 22.2004-2 and 22.2004-3 implement section 3 of the E.O. by addressing the newly established role of the ALCA, and the relationship of the ALCA with the contracting officer. FAR 22.2004-2 and 22.2004-3 provide details concerning the ALCA obtaining violation information, and furnishing written recommendations to the contracting officer.
i.
The proposed FAR 22.2002, 22.2004, 52.222-AA, Representation Regarding Compliance with Labor Laws (Executive Order 13673) (and its commercial item equivalent at 52.212-3(q)), and 52.222-AB, Subcontractor Responsibility Matters Regarding Compliance with Labor Laws (Executive Order 13673), implement E.O. section 2(a). These requirements emphasize the need to specifically address labor law compliance when determining contractor and subcontractor responsibility.
The FAR provision at 52.222-AA, Representation Regarding Compliance with Labor Laws (Executive Order 13673), requires an offeror, for solicitations estimated to exceed $500,000, to represent whether it has any administrative merits determinations, arbitral awards or decisions, or civil judgments rendered against it, within the preceding three years for violations of the specified labor laws.
The commercial item equivalent of 52.222-AA will appear as new paragraph (q) of 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Items.
ii.
The proposed FAR 22.2004-2 implements E.O. section 2(a)(ii), (iii) and (vi) by emphasizing the requirement that contracting officers must consider information concerning violations of the specified labor laws when evaluating contractor responsibility under FAR subpart 9.1. The proposed rule requires the contracting officer to confer with the ALCA and consider the ALCA's advice in evaluating any disclosed violations, but reaffirms that the contracting officer solely has the duty to make a responsibility determination of prospective contractors.
If a contracting officer has initiated a responsibility determination for a prospective contractor and the prospective contractor disclosed labor law violations in the representation at 52.222-AA (or its commercial item equivalent at 52.212-3(q)(2)), the contracting officer is instructed to—
• Request that the prospective contractor submit information into the System for Award Management (SAM) _____ (
○ The labor law violated.
○ The case number, inspection number, charge number, docket number, or other unique identification number.
○ The date rendered.
○ The name of the court, arbitrator(s), agency, board, or commission rendering the determination or decision;
• Ask the contractor for the administrative merits determination, arbitral award or decision, or civil judgment document, as necessary to make an evaluation and support recommendations, if the documents are not otherwise available, and the ALCA has been unable to obtain the documents;
• Request that the prospective contractor provide to the contracting officer such additional information as the prospective contractor deems necessary to demonstrate its responsibility,
• Provide the additional information to the ALCA; and
• Request the ALCA provide, within three business days of the request or another time period required by the contracting officer, written advice and recommendation as to the contractor's efforts to comply with the specified labor laws. The ALCA is to make one of the following recommendations:
○ The prospective contractor could be found to have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.
○ The prospective contractor could be found to have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics if the process to enter into or enhance a labor compliance agreement is initiated.
○ The prospective contractor could be found to not have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics, and the agency suspending and debarring official should be notified, in accordance with agency procedures as contemplated by current FAR provisions.
The recommendation shall include the following, based on the DOL Guidance for E.O 13673, “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces:”
○ Whether any violations should be considered serious, repeated, willful, or pervasive.
○ The number of labor violations (depending on the nature of the violation, in most cases, a single violation may not necessarily give rise to a determination of lack of responsibility).
○ Whether the prospective contractor has initiated its own remedial measures.
○ The need for, existence of, or whether the prospective contractor is adequately adhering to labor compliance agreements or other appropriate remedial measures.
○ Whether the prospective contractor is negotiating in good faith a labor compliance agreement.
○ Such supporting information that the ALCA finds to be relevant.
The contracting officer is to make a judgment of contractor responsibility, reviewing the DOL Guidance and the ALCA's recommendation.
Finally, the proposed rule preserves and emphasizes the requirement at FAR 9.103(b), which states that if a contracting officer finds a prospective a small business contractor to be nonresponsible, the matter shall be referred to the Small Business Administration (SBA). If SBA concludes that the small business is responsible, SBA will issue a Certificate of Competency.
iii.
Sections 2(a)(iv) and (v) of the E.O. require that for subcontracts estimated to exceed $500,000, other than COTS items, the contractor shall require its prospective subcontractors to make similar disclosures to those that the contractor must make; and before awarding a subcontract, the contractor is required to consider the information submitted in determining whether the subcontractor is a responsible source.
The contractor has discretion in how it manages this requirement. A contractor could decide to evaluate all of its prospective subcontractors at all tiers or may manage a process by which subcontractors evaluate lower tier subcontractors. The prime contractor is responsible for establishing the approach that works best for the contractor, based upon factors such as the nature and size of the contract requirement.
The proposed FAR revision sets forth steps that contractors must follow when determining the responsibility of subcontractors related to labor law compliance. The provision at 52.222-AB, Subcontractor Responsibility Matters Regarding Compliance with Labor Laws (Executive Order 13673), applies before contract award to subcontracts at any tier in excess of $500,000 except for COTS items, and requires the contractor to follow the procedures in paragraph (c) of the clause at 52.222-BB, Compliance with Labor Laws. When contractors are determining subcontractor responsibility after award of the prime contract, the clause at 52.222-BB, Compliance with Labor Laws applies. Paragraphs (c)(3) through (c)(7) of the clause require the following:
• The contractor shall require a prospective subcontractor to represent to the best of the subcontractor's knowledge and belief whether there have been any administrative merits determinations, arbitral awards or decisions, or civil judgments, for violations of labor laws rendered against the subcontractor within the three-year period preceding the date of the subcontractor's offer.
• If the prospective subcontractor responds affirmatively, and the contractor initiates a responsibility determination and requests additional information, the prospective subcontractor shall provide to the contractor, the administrative merits determinations, arbitral awards or decisions, or civil judgments documents that were rendered against the subcontractor within the preceding three-year period prior to the subcontractor's offer, and any notice the subcontractor received from DOL advising that it has not entered into a labor compliance agreement within a reasonable period or is not meeting the terms of an existing agreement.
• The contractor shall afford a subcontractor an opportunity to provide such additional information as the subcontractor deems necessary to demonstrate its responsibility,
• The contractor shall evaluate information submitted by the subcontractor as part of determining subcontractor responsibility and complete the evaluation—
○ For subcontracts awarded or that become effective within five days of the prime contract execution, no later than 30 days after subcontract award; or
○ For all other subcontracts, prior to subcontract award. However, in urgent circumstances, the evaluation shall be completed within 30 days of subcontract award.
• The contractor shall consider the following in evaluating information—
○ The nature of the violations (whether serious, repeated, willful, or pervasive);
○ The number of violations (depending on the nature of the violation, in most cases, a single violation of law may not necessarily give rise to a determination of lack of responsibility;
○ Any mitigating circumstances;
○ Remedial measures taken to address violations, including existence of and compliance with any labor compliance agreements, including whether the subcontractor is still negotiating in good faith a labor compliance agreement; and
○ Any notices the subcontractor received from DOL advising that it has not entered into a labor compliance agreement within a reasonable period or is not meeting the terms of an existing agreement.
○ Any advice or assistance provided by DOL,
○ Paragraph (e) states that contractors may consult with DOL regarding subcontractor labor law compliance.
• The contractor shall notify the contracting officer of the following information if the contractor determines that a subcontractor is a responsible source after having been informed that DOL has advised that the subcontractor has not entered into a compliance agreement within a reasonable period or is not meeting the terms of the agreement:
○ The name of the subcontractor; and
○ The basis for the decision.
As explained above, DOL will provide consultation and assistance, upon request, in evaluating contractor and subcontractor information relevant to disclosed labor violations. The DOL guidance explains that DOL will set up a structure within DOL to be available to consult with contractors and subcontractors. The proposed rule limits contracting officer and the ALCA's role, with respect to subcontractor labor violation information, to furnishing assistance such as access to the DOL Guidance and the appropriate contacts at DOL.
i.
The contractor and its subcontractors are required to continue to disclose, semi-annually, whether there have been any administrative merits determinations, arbitral awards or decisions, or civil judgments rendered against them for violations of labor laws.
Semi-annually during subcontract performance, subcontractors must determine whether disclosed information is updated, current and complete. If the information is not updated, current and complete, subcontractors must provide updated information to the contractor. If the information is updated, current and complete, no action is required. A subcontractor shall also disclose, within 5 business days, any notification by DOL that it has not entered into a labor compliance agreement within a reasonable period, or is not meeting the terms of an existing labor compliance agreement.
The contractor shall afford subcontractors an opportunity to provide any additional information,
ii.
• No action required, continue the contract;
• Refer the matter to DOL for action, which may include a new or enhanced labor compliance agreement;
• Do not exercise an option (see FAR 17.207(c)(8));
• Terminate the contract in accordance with the procedures set forth in FAR Part 49 or 12.403; or
• Notify the agency Suspending and Debarring Official if there are such serious, repeated, willful or pervasive labor violation(s) that the violation(s) demonstrate a lack of integrity or business ethics of a contractor or subcontractor, in accordance with agency procedures.
FAR 22.2005 and 52.222-XX, Paycheck Transparency, implement section 5 of the E.O. The proposed rule requires contractors, for contracts valued in excess of $500,000, to provide in every pay period a document (wage statement, also known as a pay stub) to all individuals performing work under the contract subject to certain wage record statutes. The wage statement lists the individual's hours worked, overtime hours, pay, and additions made to or deductions made from pay. Overtime hours contained in the wage statement shall be broken down to correspond to the period (which will almost always be weekly) for which overtime is calculated and paid. If the contractor does not include the hours worked for individuals exempt from the overtime compensation requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the contractor must inform the individual of the exempt status. In addition, if the contractor is treating an individual performing work under a contract as an independent contractor, and not as an employee, the contractor must provide a document to the individual, informing the individual of that status; the document shall be provided prior to commencement of work or at the time a contract with the individual is established. The wage statement and independent contractor notifications must also be provided in languages other than English if a significant portion of the workforce is not fluent in English. These requirements also apply to subcontracts over $500,000 for other than COTS items.
Proposed FAR 22.2006 and the clause at 52.222-YY, Arbitration of Contractor Employee Claims, implement section 6 of the E.O. The proposed rule requires that contractors agree that the decision to arbitrate claims which arise under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or under any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, be made only with the voluntary consent of employees or independent contractors after such disputes arise. Exceptions are as follows:
Consistent with section 4 of the E.O. the proposed DOL Guidance and proposed FAR rule have been developed to work together to create a compliance process that is manageable and reasonable. Given the integrated nature of the two documents, they are being published under separate notice on the same day so that respondents have the opportunity to consider the documents holistically in addition to offering comment on the specifics of each document. DoD, GSA, and NASA welcome public comment on any aspect of its rule and especially on the issues highlighted below. Responses to comments regarding subjects covered by DOL guidance will be coordinated with DOL.
DoD, GSA, and NASA and DOL recognize there will be challenges associated with the implementation of section 2 of the E.O. as regards the state laws that DOL determines to be equivalent to the Federal laws enumerated. Therefore, other than the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-approved state plans, the equivalent state law requirement will not be implemented through this rulemaking. DOL will publish additional guidance for comment, and DoD, GSA, and NASA will also publish a subsequent proposed rule to implement the E.O.'s requirements as to equivalent state laws. Public comment will be welcome upon publication of the subsequent proposed FAR rule.
Section 4(e) of the E.O. requires DOL and DoD, GSA, and NASA to minimize, to the extent practicable, the burden of complying with the E.O. for Federal contractors and subcontractors and in particular small entities, including small businesses. A number of steps have been taken in this proposed rule to minimize burden, including the following: (1) limiting disclosure requirements to contracts over $500,000, and subcontracts over $500,000 excluding COTS items, which excludes the vast majority of transactions performed by small businesses; (2) limiting initial disclosure from offerors to a simple statement of whether the offeror has any covered labor violations and generally requiring more detailed disclosures only from the apparent awardee; (3) requiring post award updates semi-annually; (4) creating certainty for contractors by having ALCAs coordinate through DOL to promote consistent responses across Government agencies regarding disclosures of violations; (5) considering phasing in requirements for flowdown and disclosure of state labor law
The proposed rule requires prospective prime contractors to publicly disclose whether they have violations of covered laws within the last three years and, for prospective contractors being evaluated for responsibility, certain basic information about the violation (
Section 4(d) of the E.O. requires the GSA Administrator to develop a single Web site for Federal contractors to use for all Federal contract reporting requirements related to this order. Interested parties may provide feedback through the National Dialogue with information available at
The labor compliance requirements of the E.O. apply both to prime contractors and to their subcontractors awarded subcontracts over $500,000 other than for COTS items. DoD, GSA, and NASA and DOL seek to minimize burden for contractors and subcontractors, including small businesses, in meeting new responsibilities related to flowdown of requirements to subcontractors, while also ensuring improved compliance with labor laws by subcontractors within the Federal supply chain.
Prime contractors are required to obtain from subcontractors with whom they have contracts of more than $500,000 the same labor compliance history that they must themselves disclose.
The rule provides that prime contractors may seek assistance from DOL in evaluating subcontractor labor violations and making determinations of responsibility or, for existing subcontracts, evaluating the need for other actions. DoD, GSA, and NASA are also considering alternative language addressing the handling of flowdown, described in section IV. Comments are welcome on the handling of flowdown, both in the proposed rule and in the alternatives described below.
The recordkeeping burden does not currently include hours for prospective contractors or prospective subcontractors to retain records of their own labor law violations. These labor law violations are significant enough that it is reasonable to assume that a prudent business would retain such determination or decision documents as a normal business practice. However, contractors and subcontractors may choose to set up internal databases to track violations subject to disclosure in a more readily retrievable manner—particularly firms that are larger and more geographically or organizationally dispersed—and may incur associated one-time setup costs. Public comment and information are sought on the need for and cost of setting up these systems, how such costs depend on contractors' size and organizational structure, and the extent to which setting up such systems would reduce recurring disclosure costs in the following years.
DoD, GSA, and NASA seek to create processes that are clear and manageable, for both prime contractors and their subcontractors, and achieve our intent of requiring that compliance with labor laws becomes a regular component of a contracting officer's assessment of a prime contractor's integrity and business ethics, as well as a prime contractor's assessment of a subcontractor's integrity and business ethics. Three alternatives are presented below: phase-in of subcontractor disclosure requirements, subcontractor disclosures and contractor assessments, and contractor and subcontractor remedies.
Changes proposed through this FAR rule and DOL's Guidance that address requirements associated with subcontracting would be applied to new contracts in phases so that contractors and subcontractors have time to acclimate themselves to their new responsibilities. DoD, GSA, NASA, and DOL welcome public input on phase-in approaches. For solicitations issued and resultant contracts awarded during the phase-in period for subcontractors, the rule would apply only to prime contractors.
Under the proposed rule, contractors are required to obtain from subcontractors with whom they have contracts exceeding $500,000 other than COTS items the same labor compliance history that they must themselves disclose. The rule provides that prime contractors may seek assistance from DOL in evaluating subcontractor labor violations and making determinations of responsibility or, for existing subcontracts, evaluating the need for other actions.
As an alternative approach for contractors determining the responsibility of their subcontractors, DoD, GSA, and NASA are considering a process where the contractor directs the subcontractor to consult with DOL on its violations and remedial actions. Under this approach, subcontractors would disclose details regarding their violations to DOL instead of to the prime contractor. The subcontractor would then make a representation back to the prime contractor regarding DOL's response to its disclosure. The rule would provide guidance on the types of
To minimize impact on procurement lead time, the alternative would allow the prime contractor to make a determination of responsibility if DOL did not provide advice within 3 business days of the subcontractor's request and did not previously advise the subcontractor that the subcontractor needed to enter into a labor compliance agreement to address its violations. However, the subcontractor would be required to inform the contractor within 5 business days of any advice made by DOL concerning the violations at any time during the term of the subcontract (including a notification that the contractor did not enter into an agreement to remediate violations in a reasonable period or did not meet the terms of an existing agreement to mitigate violations) and the prime contractor would be required to consider the information in a timely manner and determine whether action is necessary. If the prime determines that that subcontractor is a responsible source or otherwise retains the subcontractor post-award after being informed of DOL concerns, the prime would be required to inform the contracting officer of its decision and the basis for the decision.
To implement the approach described above, the following language is a possible alternative to the language in paragraph (c) and (d) of FAR 52.222-BB, Compliance with Labor Laws. The public may also comment on whether the final rule should be structured to allow the prime contractor the discretion to select either approach. We invite comments on these approaches, and whether there are additional or alternative procedures that could better achieve the intent of the E.O.
Beginning of alternative paragraphs (c) and (d) of 52.222-BB:
(c)
(1) The Contractor shall evaluate subcontractor labor violation information when determining subcontractor responsibility.
(2) This clause applies to subcontracts for other than commercially available off-the-shelf items with an estimated value that exceeds $500,000.
(3) The contractor shall require a prospective subcontractor to represent to the best of the subcontractor's knowledge and belief whether there have been any administrative merits determinations, arbitral awards or decisions, or civil judgments, for violation of labor laws rendered against the subcontractor within the three-year period preceding the date of the subcontractor's offer.
(4) In evaluating subcontractor responsibility, the contractor shall require the subcontractor to disclose all covered labor violations to DOL and may conclude that the prospective subcontractor is a responsible source for purposes of labor compliance under the Executive Order if—
(i) The prospective subcontractor provides a negative response in its representation made pursuant to paragraph (3); or
(ii) The prospective subcontractor, in response to a request made by the Contractor in the context of performing a responsibility determination, responds affirmatively, represents to the best of the subcontractor's knowledge and belief that it has disclosed to DOL any administrative merits determinations, arbitral awards or decisions, or civil judgments documents that were rendered against the subcontractor within the preceding three-year period prior to the subcontractor's offer, and any information that the subcontractor, in its judgment, believes is relevant for DOL's consideration, including remedial actions taken, and—
(A) has been advised by DOL that—
(B) the subcontractor is a party to a labor compliance agreement(s) with DOL or other enforcement agency to address all disclosed violations that have been determined by DOL to be serious, willful, repeated and/or pervasive violations and states that it has not been notified by DOL that it is not meeting the terms of its agreement;
(C) the subcontractor has agreed to enter into a labor compliance agreement or is considering a labor compliance agreement(s) with DOL or other enforcement agency to address all disclosed violations that have been determined by DOL to be serious, willful, repeated, and/or pervasive violations and has not been notified by DOL that it has not entered into an agreement in a reasonable period; or
(D) the subcontractor has provided the contractor with information about all disclosed violations that have been determined by DOL to be serious, willful, repeated, and/or pervasive, a description of DOL's advice or proposed labor compliance agreement and an explanation for the subcontractor's disagreement with DOL where the subcontractor has been notified by DOL that it has not entered into an agreement in a reasonable period or is not meeting the terms of the agreement, or where the subcontractor otherwise disagrees with DOL's advice or proposed labor compliance agreement;
(5) If the contractor determines that the subcontractor is a responsible source based on the representation made pursuant to paragraph (4)(ii)(D), the contractor must notify the Contracting Officer of the decision and provide the following information:
(i) The name of the subcontractor; and
(ii) The basis for the decision.
(6) If DOL does not provide advice to the subcontractor within three business days of the subcontractor's disclosure of labor violation information pursuant to paragraph (c)(4) and DOL did not previously advise the subcontractor that it needed to enter into a labor compliance agreement to address labor violations, the contractor may proceed with making a responsibility determination using available information and business judgment.
(d)
(1) The Contractor shall require subcontractors to determine, on a semi-annual basis during subcontract performance, whether labor law disclosures provided to DOL pursuant to paragraph (c)(4) are current and complete. If information is current and complete, no action is required. If the information is not current and complete, subcontractors must provide revised information to DOL and make a new representation to the Contractor pursuant to paragraph (c)(4) to reflect any advice provided by DOL or other actions taken by the subcontractor.
(2) The Contractor shall further require the subcontractor to disclose during the course of performance of the contract any notification by DOL, within 5 business days of such notification, that it has not entered into a labor compliance agreement in a reasonable period or is not meeting the terms of a labor compliance agreement to which it is a party, and shall allow the subcontractor to provide an explanation and supporting information for the delay or non-compliance.
(3) The Contractor shall consider, in a timely manner, information obtained from subcontractors pursuant to paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this clause, and determine whether action is necessary. Action may include, but is not limited to, requesting that the
(4) If the Contractor has been informed by the subcontractor or DOL of DOL's determination that the subcontractor has not entered into a labor compliance agreement in a reasonable period or is not meeting the terms of an existing agreement, and the contractor determines to continue the subcontract, the contractor must notify the Contracting Officer of the decision and provide the following information:
(i) The name of the subcontractor; and
(ii) The basis for the decision.
End of alternative paragraphs (c) and (d) of 52.222-BB.
DOD, GSA and NASA encourage respondents to comment on this alternative clause language in addition to the clause in the regulatory text of the proposed rule, including any comments on the relative benefits and drawbacks of each approach.
DOD, GSA, and NASA seek to create accountability for compliance in a manner that provides reasonable time and opportunities for prime contractors and subcontractors to take remedial actions but also results in the application of appropriate steps where remediation is not being accomplished in a timely fashion. A number of steps have been incorporated into the proposed rule, as well as into the alternative approach for evaluating subcontractor responsibility and post-award efforts described above, to achieve these dual goals.
For example, the contracting officer would be made aware of situations where DOL has determined that a prospective or existing contractor or subcontractor with serious, willful, repeated and/or pervasive violations has not entered into a labor compliance agreement in a reasonable period or is not meeting the terms of such agreement. This information would be provided to the contracting officer through the ALCA in the case of violations by the prime contractor and through the prime contractor in the case of violations by the subcontractor. In the latter case, subcontractors would be required to disclose DOL concerns related to entering into or meeting the terms of a compliance plan to the prime contractor, or DOL may inform the prime contractor directly. The prime contractor would then report this information to the contracting officer if the prime contractor selected the subcontractor or retained the subcontractor to continue performing the subcontract.
As an additional step, DOD, GSA, and NASA are considering the following alternative supplemental FAR language to address consideration of compliance with labor laws in the evaluation of contractor performance.
The Contracting Officer, in consultation with the Agency Labor Compliance Advisor (ALCA), shall, as part of the Contractor's performance evaluation under FAR 42.1503(b), consider concerns raised by DOL that the Contractor, or one or more of its subcontractors, has not entered into a labor compliance agreement within a reasonable period or is not meeting the terms of an existing compliance agreement to address serious, willful, repeated and/or pervasive violations of covered labor laws. The Contracting Officer's evaluation shall take into account—
(a) The contractor's explanation for any delays in entering into a compliance agreement with respect to its own labor violations and other remediation steps taken; and
(b) The contractor's explanation for finding a subcontractor responsible or retaining the subcontractor, as set forth in 52.222-BB(c)(7) and (d)(5), and any remediation steps taken.
The proposed rule (and alternative language) outline available remedies. For example, for subcontracts, remedies include requiring a new or enhanced labor compliance agreement, requiring other appropriate remedial measures, compliance assistance, and resolving issues to avoid further violations, or a decision not to continue with the subcontract, if necessary.
DoD, GSA, and NASA welcome comment on whether these remedies, including those in the supplemental language being considered for FAR 22.2004-5, achieve the appropriate balance between the dual goals of providing reasonable time for remedial action and accountability for unjustified inaction and what additional or alternative remedies should be considered.
Collateral documents, which include the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Supporting Statement, and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA), have been prepared reflecting the language of the regulatory text as promulgated in this proposed rule. Potential impacts and associated burdens of the alternative options presented in this section IV were not separately addressed. If, in the final rule promulgation, alternative options are selected, impacts and associated burdens will be reduced as the alternatives are less burdensome and will have a lesser impact.
A. E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
B. A Regulatory Impact Analysis that includes a detailed discussion and explanation about the assumptions and methodology used to estimate the cost of this proposed rule
As a result of improved transparency, individuals and the Federal Government alike will receive money that would otherwise not be earned or collected due to misclassification. In this analysis, the number of affected workers who are likely misclassified currently is 18,892 (33% × 57,249), and at least 20 percent of 18,892, or 3,778, misclassifications will be corrected. The annual impact of correcting 3,778 cases of misclassification is estimated to be at least $11.19 million ($2,963 × 3,778), an amount that will be transferred from employers (and potentially from taxpayers if increased employers' costs are passed through in the form of higher bids for Federal contracts) and will accrue in part to employees and in part to Federal revenues. The most critical factor that determines the size of the transfer estimate is the percentage of misclassifications that will be corrected by the E.O.'s paycheck transparency provision. As noted above, DoD, GSA, and NASA, and DOL estimated that 20 percent of misclassifications will be corrected. As explained, the actual percentage is likely to be much higher than 20 percent, meaning that the $11.19 million figure is likely to be an underestimate of the true annual impact of correcting misclassifications.
This rule will promote economy and efficiency in Federal Government procurement by ensuring that the Government contracts with responsible sources who comply with labor laws. Stability, dependability, accountability and transparency are important elements of economy and efficiency. Contractors and subcontractors performing under Federal contracts that are not compliant with labor laws weaken the contracting infrastructure leaving it susceptible to waste, fraud and abuse, and risk the health, safety,
The proposed revisions may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
This proposed rule implements Executive Order (E.O.) 13673, Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces, dated July 31, 2014 and amended by E.O. 13683, December 11, 2014. The policy of the Government is to promote economy and efficiency in procurement by awarding contracts to contractors that comply with labor laws. Contractors that consistently adhere to labor laws are more likely to have workplace practices that enhance productivity and increase the likelihood of timely, predictable and satisfactory delivery of goods and services to the Federal Government. The E.O. creates requirements for Federal contractors and subcontractors in three areas: (1) Disclosure of administrative merits determinations, arbitral awards or decisions, or civil judgments, of certain labor laws and Executive Orders (labor laws); (2) notice to individuals of certain pay-related information or their status as independent contractors; and (3) a prohibition on contractor use of pre-dispute arbitration agreements or claims arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment. These actions are taken to reinforce protections for workers under Federal contracts and to ensure the Government contracts with companies that have a satisfactory record of business ethics and integrity relating to labor laws governing workplace health and safety, prevention of discrimination, or fair employment and wage practices.
For contracts over $500,000, each prospective offeror must represent whether there have been any administrative merits determinations, arbitral awards or decisions, or civil judgments (referred to herein as a labor violation) rendered against the offeror, within a 3 year period preceding the offer, for violations of any of the enumerated labor laws. (The definitions of “administrative merits determinations,” “arbitral awards or decisions,” and “civil judgments” are established in the Department of Labor (DOL)'s Guidance for E.O. 13673, Fair Pay and Safe Work Places which will be published for public comment under separate notice.) Likewise, the contractor will require potential subcontractors to disclose whether there have been any labor violations.
Prior to making an award, as part of the responsibility determination, the contracting officer, will request prospective contractors who have had labor violations to identify which of the listed labor laws were violated and provide certain information about the specific violations. The information provided includes—
• The labor law violated;
• The case number, inspection number, charge number, docket number, or other unique identification number;
• The date rendered; and
• The name of the court, arbitrator(s), agency, board, or commission rendering the determination or decision.
Additionally, the contracting officer will provide prospective contractors who have had labor violations an opportunity to provide such additional information the contractor deems necessary to demonstrate its responsibility,
The E.O. improves on paycheck transparency in Federal contracts by requiring that contractors provide individuals with a wage statement, also called a pay stub with basic information about their hours and wages so that workers will know if they are being paid properly for work performed. In addition, when contractors are treating an individual as an independent contractor, rather than an employee, the contractor must provide a document stating this to the individual.
The E.O. provides that, for contracts estimated to exceed $1,000,000, contractor employees and independent contractors may not be required to enter into pre-dispute arbitration agreements for disputes arising out of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act or from torts related to sexual assault or harassment.
The President issued Executive Order 13673, Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces, dated July 31, 2014 and amended by E.O. 13683, December 11, 2014. The Constitution and the laws of the United States of America authorize the President to issue Executive Orders pursuant to his authority under “the Constitution and the laws of the United States,” expressly including the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (Procurement Act), 40 U.S.C. 101
The overall objective of the proposed rule is to increase the Government's ability to contract with companies that are compliant with labor laws, thereby increasing the likelihood of timely, predictable, and satisfactory delivery of goods and services.
Generally, the proposed rule applies to contracts estimated to exceed $500,000. The specific objectives of the proposed rule for consideration in this analysis are to—
a. Ensure that when the responsibility process is initiated, contracting officers know whether a prospective contractor has, within the three years preceding the offer, had any administrative merits, arbitral awards or decisions, or civil judgments rendered against the prospective contractor for any of the statutes or Executive Orders listed in the E.O. and in the definition of labor laws at FAR 22.2002 and if so, to list the labor violations. This is done to inform the contracting officer if the offerors consistently adhere to labor laws and is necessary to making a responsibility determination;
b. Assist contracting officers in the review of the labor violations by designating a senior agency official to be an Agency Labor Compliance Advisor (ALCA) who will work in consultation with contracting officers and DOL in reviewing and evaluating disclosed
c. Provide prospective contractors, as part of the responsibility determination, an opportunity to disclose any steps taken to correct the labor violations and include any agreements entered into with an enforcement agency. The contracting officer, in consultation with the ALCA, and relevant enforcement agencies will review this information to determine if agreements are in place or are otherwise needed to address appropriate remedial measures, compliance assistance, steps to resolve issues to avoid further violations, or other related matters. The objective of this step is to help firms improve their labor law compliance;
d. Ensure that, post-award, the contractor updates disclosed information about labor violations semi-annually for contracting officer's continued consideration of contract performance and decisions regarding exercise of options;
e. Ensure that contractors know whether a prospective subcontractor, for subcontracts estimated to exceed $500,000 for other than commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items, has within the three years preceding the offer, had any administrative merits, arbitral awards or decisions, or civil judgments rendered against the prospective subcontractor for any of the statutes or Executive Orders listed in Executive Order 13673 and in the definition of labor laws at FAR 22.2002 and if so, that the potential subcontractor is provided an opportunity to provide such additional information the subcontractor deems necessary to demonstrate its responsibility,
f. Ensure that, for subcontracts estimated to exceed $500,000, for other than COTS items, subcontractors update information disclosed to their prime contractor about labor violations semi-annually and that contractors continue consideration of this information during subcontract performance;
g. Ensure that contractors and subcontractors, for subcontracts estimated to exceed $500,000 other than COTS items, provide individuals, in every pay period, a wage statement (also known as a pay stub) containing the basic information about their such as hours worked, overtime hours, pay, and any additions made to or deductions made from pay, as detailed in the wage statement requirements of DOL's “Guidance for Executive Order 13673”, Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces;
h. Ensure that individuals who are treated as independent contractors, rather than as employees, are provided documentation of this status by the contractor or subcontractor, for subcontracts estimated to exceed $500,000;
i. Ensure, where a significant portion of the workforce is not fluent in English, the contractor provides the wage statement and the independent contractor notification in English and the language(s) with which the workforce is more familiar; and
j. Ensure that employees and independent contractors of contractors with contracts estimated to exceed $1,000,000 are not required to enter into predispute arbitration agreements for disputes arising out of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act or from torts related to sexual assault or harassment (except when the employee is subject to a collective bargaining agreement negotiated between the contractor and a labor union representing them, and when valid contracts already exist).
The E.O. requires that, in developing the guidance and proposing to amend the FAR, the Secretary of Labor and the FAR Council shall minimize, to the extent practicable, the burden of complying with the E.O. for Federal contractors and subcontractors and in particular small entities, including small businesses, as defined in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632), and small nonprofit organizations. See § 4(e). The intent of the E.O. is to minimize additional compliance burdens and to increase economy and efficiency in Federal contracting by helping more contractors and subcontractors come into compliance with workplace protections, not by denying them contracts.
Additionally, this rule requires a contractor treating an individual performing work under the contract as independent contractors, and not as an employee, to provide a document to these individual informing them of that status. This is a one-time documentation requirement which will be accomplished prior to commencement of work or at the time a contract with the individual is established. The rule does not preclude the contractor from providing this information electronically. It is estimated that 14,059 small businesses will be impacted by these paycheck transparency requirements.
• The labor law violated;
• The case number, inspection number, charge number, docket number, or other unique identification number;
• The date rendered; and
• The name of the court, arbitrator(s), agency, board, or commission rendering the determination or decision.
This information allows the agency to obtain the labor violation document from DOL. If the agency is unable to obtain the violation document, the agency will ask the offeror for the document.
The provision affords an opportunity for offerors to provide all other such information that the offeror deems necessary to demonstrate its responsibility to the contracting officer. Such information may be related to mitigating circumstances, remedial measures (to include labor compliance agreements), and other steps, taken to achieve compliance with labor laws.
For the provision at 52.222-AB, paragraph (b) requires that, for subcontracts where the estimated subcontract value exceeds $500,000 for other than COTS items, the contractor shall require all prospective subcontractors to represent whether there have been any administrative merits determinations, arbitral awards or decisions, or civil judgments rendered against them for violations of labor laws within the three-year period preceding the date of their offer.
The 52.222-AB provision requires that clause 52.222-BB(c) procedures be followed if the contractor initiates a responsibility determination on the prospective subcontractor. During the responsibility process, if the subcontractor had responded affirmatively to the representation, the contractor shall require the prospective subcontractor to submit the administrative merits determinations, arbitral awards or decisions, and/or civil judgments and any notice the subcontractor received from DOL advising that it has not entered into a labor compliance agreement within a reasonable period or is not meeting the terms of an existing agreement.
Additionally, contractors shall afford prospective subcontractors an opportunity to provide such information the prospective subcontractor deems necessary to demonstrate its responsibility to the contractor. Such information may be related to mitigating circumstances, remedial measures such as labor compliance agreements and other steps taken to achieve compliance with labor laws and explanations for delays in entering into a labor compliance agreement within a reasonable period or not meeting the terms of an existing agreement.
The contractor is required to notify the contracting officer of the name of the subcontractor and the basis for the decision if the contractor determines that a subcontractor is a responsible source after having been informed that DOL advised the subcontractor that it has not entered into a labor compliance agreement within a reasonable period or is not meeting the terms of such agreement.
Providing information about the labor violations and mitigating information will require businesses to search records for each labor violation, determine how the violation was addressed, and disclose the information. The provision requires contractors to consider the DOL Guidance in making a subcontractor responsibility determination. The provision provides that the contractor may consult with DOL.
The clause at 52.222-BB, Compliance with Labor Laws, requires contractors to, semi-annually update information pursuant to the provision at 52.222-AA. As in the 52.222-AA provision, the clause requires the contractor to furnish a copy of the violation if the contracting officer asks, and gives contractors the opportunity to furnish information on mitigating circumstances.
The clause requires contractors to require subcontractors to update information provided pursuant to provision 52.222-AB semi-annually and give subcontractors the opportunity to provide information on mitigating circumstances. In addition to the semi-annual updates, a subcontractor shall also disclose, within 5 business days, any notification by DOL that it has not entered into a labor compliance agreement within a reasonable period, or is not meeting the terms of an existing labor compliance agreement. The contractor shall notify the contracting officer of the name of the subcontractor and the basis for the decision if the contractor decides to continue the subcontract after having been informed that DOL advised the subcontractor it has not entered into a labor compliance agreement within a reasonable period or is not meeting the terms of an existing labor compliance agreement.
The clause requires that contractors consider the information provided and the DOL Guidance in determining whether action is necessary. Such action may include requesting that the subcontractor pursue a new or enhanced labor compliance agreement, requiring other appropriate remedial measures, compliance assistance, resolving issues to avoid further violations, or not continuing with the subcontract, if necessary.
The clause requires contractors to flowdown the clause to subcontracts at all tiers with an estimated value exceeding $500,000 for other than COTS items.
Small business subcontractors may be negatively affected by this proposed rule. A prime contractor or higher tier subcontractor may have difficulty evaluating labor violations, and may find it problematic to find time to learn. This may lead to behaviors such as choosing not to subcontract with a small business which has labor violations, especially if the small business has not initiated the process to negotiate a labor compliance agreement.
Alternatively, a positive impact is that small businesses with a strong record of labor law compliance may receive a greater number of subcontracts, and develop strong relationships with contractors and DOL.
If contractors choose not to include a record of hours worked for individuals exempt from the overtime compensation requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the contractor must inform the individual of their overtime exempt status. There is no requirement that the contractor inform the individual of the exempt status by means of an additional or separate document or notification.
The clause requires contractors to provide to individuals it is treating as independent contractors with a document so informing the individual.
The clause requires that if a significant portion of the workforce is not fluent in English, the contractor shall provide the wage statement and the independent contractor notification in English and the language(s) with which the workforce is more familiar.
The clause requires contractors to flowdown to all subcontracts exceeding $500,000, for other than COTS items, at any tier, the requirements of the clause.
(1) Employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement negotiated between the contractor and a labor organization representing the employees;
(2) Employees or independent contractors who entered into a valid contract to arbitrate prior to the contractor bidding on a contract containing the clause, implementing Executive Order 13673 the Government contract. This exception does not apply i) if the contractor is permitted to change the terms of the contract with the employee or independent contractor; or ii) when the contract with the employee or independent contractor is renegotiated or replaced.
We estimate that the average contractor will utilize a general manager equivalent to a mid-range GS-14 to review the firms' policies and procedures to ensure they comply with the requirements of the clause. It is estimated this would take approximately thirty minutes.
DOL will issue guidance to assist Federal agencies in the implementation of the E.O. DOL is working to provide contractors with guidance and the tools they need to operate in compliance with the variety of labor laws enforced by DOL. By working with firms who report labor violations, the Government is providing assistance to educate employers on Federal labor requirements and practices they must follow to ensure compliance.
The E.O. contains two distinct requirements for contractors and subcontractors seeking or performing covered contracts to provide information. First, contractors will disclose to contracting agencies (and subcontractors will disclose to contractors) certain violations of any of the 14 Federal labor laws identified in the E.O. or any equivalent State laws (the Labor Laws), as well as additional information regarding the disclosed violations. The proposed rule does not implement the equivalent state laws component of the E.O., except for OSHA-approved State Plans. DOL will publish in the
Having determined that disclosure of information by contractors and subcontractors is necessary, however, the disclosure provisions contained in the E.O. and the proposed rule are designed to minimize the burden on them. For example, one alternative to the approach taken in the proposed rule would be to require all contractors for which a responsibility determination is undertaken to provide the following nine categories of information regarding their labor violations:
• The date that the violation was rendered;
• The name of the court, arbitrator(s), agency, board, or commission that rendered it;
• The Labor Law that was violated;
• The name of the case, arbitration, or proceeding, if applicable;
• The street address of the worksite where the violation took place (or if the violation took place in multiple worksites, then the address of each worksite);
• The case number, inspection number, charge number, docket number, or other unique identification number;
• Whether the proceeding was ongoing or closed;
• Whether there was a settlement, compliance, or remediation agreement related to the violation; and
• The amount(s) of any penalties or fines assessed and any back wages due as a result of the violation.
This approach would have made the process of considering labor violations more efficient from the perspective of contracting agencies. However, this list was narrowed to the following four categories of information
• The Labor Law that was violated;
• The case number, inspection number, charge number, docket number, or other unique identification number;
• The date that the determination, judgment, award, or decision was rendered; and
• The name of the court, arbitrator(s), agency, board, or commission that rendered it.
Another alternative would be to have all prospective contractors bidding on contracts—not just those for which a contracting officer undertakes a responsibility determination—disclose the information provided above. This would make the procurement process simpler and more expeditious from the perspective of contracting agencies. However, this alternative would increase the burden on contractors relative to the requirement contained in the proposed rule, and it was determined that the proposed rule's more narrowly tailored requirement would retain its effectiveness while minimizing the burden on contractors.
Similarly, the E.O.'s requirements could be limited to first-tier subcontractors. However, for the same reasons as the previous alternative, this alternative would also undermine the core goals of the E.O., given that a significant portion of the work on Federal contracts is performed by subcontractors below the first tier.
Another alternative would be to have the subcontractor report the information to DOL and inform the prime. However, the prime has to make a subcontractor responsibility determination and without this information may not be able to complete their analysis for the determination.
Other alternatives around the implementation date for subcontractor disclosure may minimize the reporting burden upfront to provide contractors an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the process and establish a process to comply with the E.O. For example, instead of requiring subcontractors to immediately comply with the E.O. requirements, these requirements could be phased in (
Section IV, Alternatives to the proposed rule regulatory text, provides discussion of additional alternatives for consideration and public comment.
The Regulatory Secretariat has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the Regulatory Secretariat. DoD, GSA, and NASA invite comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
DoD, GSA, and NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by the rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (FAR Case 2014-025), in correspondence.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) applies. The proposed rule contains information collection requirements. Accordingly, the Regulatory Secretariat has submitted a request for approval of a new information collection requirement concerning FAR case 2014-025, Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces, to the Office of Management and Budget.
A. Annual public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated at 6.26 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering the data needed, reviewing, and submitting the information.
B. Annual public recordkeeping burden for this proposed rule is estimated at 52 hours per recordkeeping action to retain submitted subcontractor information.
C. Total estimated summary of the annual cost to the public for information collection reporting and recordkeeping burdens.
D. In order to successfully comply with the requirements of the rule, contractors and subcontractors will initially need to review and become familiar with the FAR rule and the DOL Guidance. We estimate that for this initial requirements review the average contractor will utilize a general manager equivalent to a mid-range GS-14 ($63 hourly rate) and spend approximately eight hours. Therefore, the total cost to contractors and subcontractors for this
E. Request for Comments Regarding Paperwork Burden. Submit comments, including suggestions for reducing this burden, not later than July 27, 2015 to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), ATTN: ATTN: Ms. Flowers, 1800 F Street NW., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405-0001.
Public comments are particularly invited on: whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Requesters may obtain a copy of the supporting statement from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), ATTN: Hada Flowers, 1800 F Street NW., 2nd floor, Washington, DC 20405. Please cite OMB Control Number 9000-00XX, Title, in all correspondence.
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose amending 48 CFR parts 1, 4, 9, 17, 22, and 52 as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
(a) * * *
(19) 52.222-AA, Representation Regarding Compliance with Labor Laws (Executive Order 13673).
(b) For Executive Order (E.O.) 13673, Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces, requirements pertaining to labor violations, see subpart 22.20.
The revised and added text reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) Provide an offeror who does not furnish the certification or such information as may be requested by the contracting officer an opportunity to remedy the deficiency. Failure to furnish the certification or such information may render the offeror nonresponsible.
(b) When an offeror provides an affirmative response to the provision at 52.222-AA, Representation Regarding Compliance with Labor Laws (Executive Order 13673), or its commercial item equivalent at 52.212-3(q), the contracting officer shall follow the procedures in subpart 22.20.
(b) * * *
(4) Information provided pursuant to 52.222-AA, Representation Regarding Compliance with Labor Laws (Executive Order 13673), or its commercial item equivalent at 52.212-3(q), shall be considered in accordance with the procedures described at subpart 22.20.
The added text reads as follows:
(c) * * *
(8) If the contract contains the clause 52.222-BB, Compliance with Labor Laws, and labor law violations were disclosed pursuant to the clause, the contractor's labor law violations and remedial actions and the agency labor compliance advisor recommendations have been considered.
The revised and added text reads as follows:
(c)(1) * * *
(i) 40 U.S.C. chapter 31, subchapter IV, Wage Rate Requirements (Construction)(see subpart 22.4);
(ii) 40 U.S.C. chapter 37, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards (see subpart 22.3);
(iii) The Copeland Act (18 U.S.C. 874 and 40 U.S.C. 3145) (see 22.403-2);
(iv) 41 U.S.C. chapter 65, Contracts for Materials, Supplies, Articles, and
(v) 41 U.S.C. chapter 67, Service Contract Labor Standards (see subpart 22.10).
(2) * * *
(3) Department of Labor's (DOL) administration and enforcement authorities under the aforementioned statutes and under Executive orders implemented in this part do not limit the authority of contracting agencies to otherwise administer and enforce the terms and conditions of agency contracts.
(a)
(b)
(1) Interface with DOL, agency labor compliance advisors, outside agencies, and other parties in matters concerning interpretation, guidance and enforcement of labor statutes applicable to Federal contracts.
(2) Provide advice and guidance to the contracting agency, contractors, and labor community regarding application of labor statutes, Executive Orders, and implementing regulations in Federal contracts.
(3) Serve as labor subject matter experts on all issues specific to part 22 and its prescribed contract clauses and provisions.
(c) Agency labor advisors are listed at
This subpart prescribes policies and procedures to implement Executive Order (E.O.) 13673, Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces, dated July 31, 2014.
As used in this subpart—
(1) The Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. chapter 8.
(2) The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) of 1970.
(3) The Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.
(4) The National Labor Relations Act.
(5) 40 U.S.C. chapter 31, subchapter IV, formerly known as the Davis-Bacon Act.
(6) 41 U.S.C. chapter 67, formerly known as the Service Contract Act.
(7) Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965 (Equal Employment Opportunity).
(8) Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
(9) The Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1972 and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974.
(10) The Family and Medical Leave Act.
(11) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
(12) The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
(13) The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.
(14) Executive Order 13658 of February 12, 2014 (Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors).
(15) Equivalent State laws as defined in guidance issued by the Department of Labor. (The only equivalent State laws implemented in the FAR are OSHA-approved State Plans).
It is the policy of the Federal Government to promote economy and efficiency in procurement by awarding contracts to contractors who promote safe, healthy, fair, and effective workplaces through compliance with labor laws. Contractors that consistently adhere to labor laws are more likely to have workplace practices that enhance productivity and increase the likelihood of timely, predictable, and satisfactory delivery of goods and services. This policy is promoted by E.O. 13673, Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(2) The ALCA provides assistance to the contracting officer by obtaining labor violation documents, by using DOL guidance to evaluate the violations and contractor actions taken to address the violations, and by providing a supported recommendation,
(b)
(1) The contracting officer shall request that the prospective contractor, for each labor violation—
(i) Enter the following information in SAM _____ (insert name of reporting module)
(A) The labor law violated.
(B) The case number, inspection number, charge number, docket number, or other unique identification number.
(C) The date rendered.
(D) The name of the court, arbitrator(s), agency, board, or commission rendering the determination or decision;
(ii) Provide the information in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section to the contracting officer if the prospective contractor meets an exception to SAM registration (see 4.1102(a)); or
(iii) Provide to the contracting officer such additional information as the prospective contractor deems necessary to demonstrate its responsibility,
(2) The contracting officer shall—
(i) Request that the ALCA provide written advice and recommendations within three business days of the request, or another time period required by the contracting officer;
(ii) Furnish to the ALCA all relevant information provided to the contracting officer by the prospective contractor;
(iii) Request the ALCA obtain the administrative merits determination(s), arbitral award(s) or decision(s), or civil judgment(s), as necessary to support recommendations, and for each recommendation of an unsatisfactory record of integrity and business ethics. (The ALCA shall notify the contracting officer if the ALCA is unable to obtain any of the necessary document(s). The contracting officer shall request the prospective contractor provide the document(s) to the contracting officer.)
(3)(i) The ALCA shall make one of the following recommendations—
(A) The prospective contractor could be found to have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics;
(B) The prospective contractor could be found to have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics if the process to enter into or enhance a labor compliance agreement is initiated; or
(C) The prospective contractor could be found to not have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics, and the agency Suspending and Debarring Official should be notified in accordance with agency procedures.
(ii) The recommendation shall include the following, using the DOL guidance:
(A) Whether any violations should be considered serious, repeated, willful, or pervasive.
(B) The number of labor violations (depending on the nature of the violation, in most cases, a single violation may not necessarily give rise to a determination of lack of responsibility).
(C) Whether the prospective contractor has initiated its own remedial measures.
(D) The need for, existence of, and whether the prospective contractor is adequately adhering to labor compliance agreements or other appropriate remedial measures.
(E) Whether the prospective contractor is still negotiating in good faith a labor compliance agreement that was recommended as necessary.
(F) Such additional supporting information that the ALCA finds to be relevant.
(4) The contracting officer shall—
(i) Ensure, using DOL guidance and the ALCA's advice and recommendations, that the following have been considered in evaluating prospective contractors:
(A) The nature of the labor violations (whether serious, repeated, willful, or pervasive).
(B) The number of labor violations (depending on the nature of the violation, in most cases, a single violation may not necessarily give rise to a determination of lack of responsibility).
(C) Any mitigating circumstances.
(D) Remedial measures taken to address labor violations, including existence of and compliance with any labor compliance agreements, or whether the prospective contractor is still in good faith negotiating such an agreement;
(ii) Proceed with making a responsibility determination using available information and business judgment if a timely written recommendation is not received from an ALCA; and
(iii) Comply with 9.103(b) when making a determination that a prospective small business contractor is nonresponsible and refer to Small Business Administration for a Certificate of Competency.
(a)
(b)
(1) The ALCA shall monitor the SAM _____ (insert name of reporting module) for updated information pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section; if the ALCA is unable to obtain any needed relevant documents, the ALCA may request the contracting officer to obtain the documents from the contractor. If the contractor had previously agreed to enter into a labor compliance agreement, the ALCA shall verify, consulting with DOL as needed, whether the contractor is making progress toward, or has entered into the labor compliance agreement. If a labor compliance agreement has been entered into, the ALCA shall verify, consulting with DOL as needed, whether the contractor is meeting the terms of the agreement. If the information indicates that further consideration or action may be warranted, the ALCA shall notify the contracting officer in accordance with agency procedures;
(2) If the contracting officer was notified pursuant to paragraph (1) of this section, the contracting officer shall afford the contractor an opportunity to provide any additional information the contractor may wish to provide for the contracting officer's consideration,
(3) The ALCA shall evaluate the information and provide advice and recommendation regarding appropriate actions for the contracting officer's consideration. The recommendation shall include the following using the DOL guidance:
(i) Whether any violations should be considered serious, repeated, willful, or pervasive.
(ii) The number of labor violations (depending on the nature of the violation, in most cases, a single violation may not necessarily give rise to a determination of lack of responsibility).
(iii) Whether the contractor has initiated its own remedial measures.
(iv) The need for, existence of, and whether the contractor is adequately adhering to labor compliance agreements or other appropriate remedial measures.
(v) Whether the contractor is still negotiating in good faith a labor compliance agreement that was recommended.
(vi) Such other supporting information that the ALCA finds to be relevant.
(4) The contracting officer shall consider such information, including advice and recommendations of the ALCA to determine whether action may be warranted. Appropriate actions may include—
(i) No action required, continue the contract;
(ii) Refer the matter to DOL for action, which may include a new or enhanced labor compliance agreement;
(iii) Do not exercise an option (see 17.207(c)(8));
(iv) Terminate the contract in accordance with the procedures set forth in Part 49 or 12.403; or
(v) Notify the agency Suspending and Debarring Official if there are such serious, repeated, willful or pervasive labor violation(s) that the violation(s) demonstrate a lack of integrity or business ethics of a contractor or subcontractor, in accordance with agency procedures.
The provision at 52.222-AB, Subcontractor Responsibility Matters Regarding Compliance with Labor Laws (Executive Order 13763), and the clause at 52.222-BB, Compliance with Labor Laws, have requirements for pre-award subcontractor labor violation disclosures and semi-annual post-award updates during subcontract performance, and evaluations thereof. This applies to subcontracts at any tier estimated to exceed $500,000, other than for commercially available off-the-shelf items.
Executive Order 13673 requires contractors to provide, on contracts that exceed $500,000—
(a) A document (wage statement, also known as a pay stub) in every pay period to all individuals performing work under the contract, for which contractors are required to maintain wage records under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Wage Rate Requirements (Construction), Service Contract Labor Standards, and equivalent state laws (see DOL guidance section IV paragraph A for the list of equivalent state laws); and
(b) A document to individuals treated as independent contractors informing them of that status.
Executive Order 13673 requires contractors, on contracts exceeding $1,000,000, to agree that the decision to arbitrate claims arising under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, be made only with the voluntary consent of employees or independent contractors after such disputes arise, subject to certain exceptions.
(a) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 52.222-AA, Representation Regarding Compliance with Labor Laws (Executive Order 13673), in solicitations that contain the clause at 52.222-BB.
(b) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 52.222-AB, Subcontractor Responsibility Matters Regarding Compliance with Labor Laws (Executive Order 13673), in solicitations that contain the clause at 52.222-BB.
(c) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.222-BB, Compliance with Labor Laws, in solicitations and
(d) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.222-XX, Paycheck Transparency, in solicitations and contracts if the estimated value exceeds $500,000.
(e) The contracting office shall insert the clause at 52.222-YY, Arbitration of Contractor Employee Claims, in solicitations and contracts if the estimated value exceeds $1,000,000, other than those for commercial items.
The revised and added text reads as follows:
(c)(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(xiv) 52.222-AA, Representation Regarding Compliance with Labor Laws (Executive Order 13673). This provision applies to solicitations expected to exceed $500,000.
The revised and added text reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) In paragraph (h): A judgment or finding of a civil offense by any court of competent jurisdiction.
(2) In paragraph (q): Any judgment or order entered by any Federal or State court in which the court determined that a labor law violation occurred, or enjoined or restrained a violation of labor law. It includes a judgment or order that is not final or is subject to appeal. To determine whether a particular civil judgment is covered by this definition, it is necessary to read section II. B. in the DOL guidance.
(1) The Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. chapter 8.
(2) The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) of 1970.
(3) The Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.
(4) The National Labor Relations Act.
(5) 40 U.S.C. chapter 31, subchapter IV, formerly known as the Davis-Bacon Act.
(6) 41 U.S.C. chapter 67, formerly known as the Service Contract Act.
(7) Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965 (Equal Employment Opportunity).
(8) Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
(9) The Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1972 and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974.
(10) The Family and Medical Leave Act.
(11) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
(12) The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
(13) The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.
(14) Executive Order 13658 of February 12, 2014 (Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors).
(15) Equivalent State laws as defined in guidance issued by the Department of Labor. (The only equivalent State laws implemented in the FAR are OSHA-approved State Plans).
(q)(1) The Offeror [] does [] does not anticipate submitting an offer for a solicitation with an estimated contract value of greater than $500,000.
(2) If the Offeror checked “does” in paragraph (q)(1) of this provision, the Offeror represents to the best of the Offeror's knowledge and belief [
[ ](i) There has been no administrative merits determination, arbitral award or decision, or civil judgment, rendered against the offeror within the three-year period preceding the date of the offer for violations of labor laws (see definitions in paragraph (a)); or
[ ](ii) There has been an administrative merits determination, arbitral award or decision, or civil judgment, rendered against the Offeror within the three-year period preceding the date of the offer for violations of labor laws.
(3) Responsibility determination. (i) If the box at paragraph (q)(2)(ii) of this clause is checked and the Contracting Officer has initiated a responsibility determination and has requested additional information, the Offeror shall provide the following—
(A) In the SAM _____ (insert name of reporting module)
(1) The labor law violated.
(2) The case number, inspection number, charge number, docket number, or other unique identification number.
(3) The date rendered.
(4) The name of the court, arbitrator(s), agency, board, or commission that rendered the determination or decision.
(B) The information in paragraph (A) to the Contracting Officer, if the Offeror meets an exception to SAM registration (see FAR 4.1102(a)).
(C) The administrative merits determination, arbitral award or decision, or civil judgment document, to the Contracting Officer, if the Contracting Officer requires it.
(D) To the Contracting Officer such additional information as the Offeror deems necessary to demonstrate its responsibility,
(ii)(A) The Contracting Officer will consider all information provided under (q)(3)(i) as part of making a responsibility determination.
(B) A representation that any violations of labor laws exist will not necessarily result in withholding of an award under this solicitation. Failure of the Offeror to furnish a representation or provide such additional information as requested by the Contracting Officer may render the Offeror nonresponsible.
(C) The representation in paragraph (q)(2) of this provision is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when making award. If it is later determined that the Offeror knowingly rendered an erroneous representation, in addition to other remedies available to the Government, the Contracting Officer may terminate the contract resulting from this solicitation in accordance with the procedures set forth in FAR 12.403.
(iii) The Offeror shall provide immediate written notice to the Contracting Officer if at any time prior to contract award the Offeror learns that its representation was erroneous when submitted or by reason of changed circumstances.
The revised and added text reads as follows:
(b) * * *
__(1) * * *
__(35) 52.222-BB, Compliance with Labor Laws (DATE) (Executive Order 13673).
__(36) 52.222-XX, Paycheck Transparency (DATE) (Executive Order 13673).
__(37) 52.222-YY, Arbitration of Contractor Employee Claims (DATE). (Executive Order 13673).
(e)(1) * * *
(xvi) 52.222-BB, Compliance with Labor Laws (DATE) (Executive Order 13673).
(xvii) 52.222-XX, Paycheck Transparency (DATE) (E.O. 13673).
Alternate II (DATE). * * *
(e)(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(O) 52.222-BB, Compliance with Labor Laws (DATE) (Executive Order 13673)
(P) 52.222-XX, Paycheck Transparency (DATE) (E.O. 13673)
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(viii) 52.244-6, Subcontracts for Commercial Items (DATE).
As prescribed in 22.2007(a), insert the following provision:
(a)
(b) The Offeror [ ] does [ ] does not anticipate submitting an offer for a solicitation with an estimated contract value of greater than $500,000.
(c) If the Offeror checked “does” in paragraph (b) of this provision, the Offeror represents to the best of the Offeror's knowledge and belief [
[ ](1) There has been no administrative merits determination, arbitral award or decision, or civil judgment, rendered against the offeror within the three-year period preceding the date of the offer for violations of labor laws; or
[ ](2) There has been an administrative merits determination, arbitral award or decision, or civil judgment, rendered against the Offeror within the three-year period preceding the date of the offer for violations of labor laws.
(d) Responsibility determination. (1) If the box at paragraph (c)(2) of this provision is checked and the Contracting Officer has initiated a responsibility determination and has requested additional information, the Offeror shall provide the following—
(i) In the SAM _____ (insert name of reporting module)
(A) The labor law violated.
(B) The case number, inspection number, charge number, docket number, or other unique identification number.
(C) The date rendered.
(D) The name of the court, arbitrator(s), agency, board, or commission that rendered the determination or decision.
(ii) The information in paragraph (i) to the Contracting Officer, if the Offeror meets an exception to SAM registration (see FAR 4.1102(a)).
(iii) The administrative merits determination, arbitral award or decision, or civil judgment document to the Contracting Officer, if the contracting agency is unable to obtain the document.
(iv) To the Contracting Officer such additional information as the Offeror deems necessary to demonstrate its responsibility,
(2)(i) The Contracting Officer will consider all information provided under (d)(1) as part of making a responsibility determination.
(ii) A representation that any violations of labor laws exist will not necessarily result in withholding of an award under this solicitation. Failure of the Offeror to furnish a representation or provide such additional information as requested by the Contracting Officer may render the Offeror nonresponsible.
(iii) The representation in paragraph (c) of this provision is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when making award. If it is later determined that the Offeror knowingly rendered an erroneous representation, in addition to other remedies available to the Government, the Contracting Officer may terminate the contract resulting from this solicitation in accordance with the procedures set forth in Part 49.
(3) The Offeror shall provide immediate written notice to the Contracting Officer if at any time prior to contract award the Offeror learns that its representation was erroneous when submitted or by reason of changed circumstances.
As prescribed in 22.2007(b), insert the following provision:
(a)
(b)
(c)
As prescribed in 22.2007(c), insert the following clause:
(a)
(1) The Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. chapter 8.
(2) The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) of 1970.
(3) The Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.
(4) The National Labor Relations Act.
(5) 40 U.S.C. chapter 31, subchapter IV, formerly known as the Davis-Bacon Act.
(6) 41 U.S.C. chapter 67, formerly known as the Service Contract Act.
(7) Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965 (Equal Employment Opportunity).
(8) Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
(9) The Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1972 and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974.
(10) The Family and Medical Leave Act.
(11) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
(12) The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
(13) The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.
(14) Executive Order 13658 of February 12, 2014 (Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors).
(15) Equivalent State laws as defined in guidance issued by the Department of Labor. (The only equivalent State laws implemented in the FAR are OSHA-approved State Plans).
(b)
(i) In the System for Award Management (SAM), _____ (insert name of reporting module)
(ii) Directly to the Contracting Officer, if the Contractor meets an exception to SAM registration at 4.1102(a).
(2) The Contracting Officer may require the Contractor provide the administrative merits determination, arbitral award or decision, or civil judgment document, if the contracting agency is unable to obtain the document.
(3) The Contracting Officer will afford the Contractor an opportunity to provide any additional information,
(4) The Contracting Officer will consider whether action is necessary. Such action may include a new or enhanced labor compliance agreement, requiring other appropriate remedial measures, compliance assistance, and resolving issues to avoid further violations, as well as remedies such as decisions not to exercise an option, contract termination, or notification to the agency Suspending and Debarring Official.
(c)
(1) The Contractor shall evaluate subcontractor labor violation information when determining subcontractor responsibility.
(2) This applies to subcontracts for other than commercially available off-the-shelf items with an estimated value that exceeds $500,000.
(3) The Contractor shall require a prospective subcontractor to represent to the best of the subcontractor's knowledge and belief whether there have been any
(4) If the prospective subcontractor responds affirmatively, and the Contractor initiates a responsibility determination and requests additional information, the prospective subcontractor shall provide to the Contractor the following information:
(i) Administrative merits determinations, arbitral awards or decisions, or civil judgments documents that were rendered against the subcontractor within the preceding three-year period prior to the subcontractor's offer; and
(ii) Any notice from DOL advising that the subcontractor has not entered into a labor compliance agreement within a reasonable period or is not meeting the terms of an existing agreement.
(5) The Contractor shall afford a subcontractor an opportunity to provide such additional information as the subcontractor deems necessary to demonstrate its responsibility,
(6) The Contractor shall evaluate subcontractor information using the DOL guidance as part of a responsibility determination.
(i) The Contractor shall complete the evaluation—
(A) For subcontracts awarded or that become effective within five days of the prime contract execution, no later than 30 days after subcontract award; or
(B) For all other subcontracts, prior to subcontract award. However, in urgent circumstances, the evaluation shall be completed within 30 days of subcontract award.
(ii) The Contractor shall consider the following in evaluating information:
(A) The nature of the violations (whether serious, repeated, willful, or pervasive).
(B) The number of violations (depending on the nature of the violation, in most cases, a single violation may not necessarily give rise to a determination of lack of responsibility).
(C) Any mitigating circumstances.
(D) Remedial measures taken to address labor violations, including existence of and compliance with any labor compliance agreements, or whether the prospective subcontractor is still in good faith negotiating such an agreement.
(E) Any advice or assistance provided by DOL.
(7) The Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer of the following information if the contractor determines that a subcontractor is a responsible source after having been informed that DOL has advised that the subcontractor has not entered into a compliance agreement within a reasonable period or is not meeting the terms of the agreement:
(i) The name of the subcontractor; and
(ii) The basis for the decision.
(d)
(1)(i) The Contractor shall require subcontractors to determine, on a semi-annual basis during subcontract performance, whether labor law disclosures provided pursuant to paragraph (c) of this clause and pursuant to 52.222-AB, Subcontractor Responsibility Matters Regarding Compliance with Labor Laws (Executive Order 13673), are updated, current and complete. If the information is not updated, current and complete, subcontractors must provide revised information to the Contractor. If it is updated, current and complete, no action is required.
(ii) The Contractor shall further require the subcontractor to disclose during the course of performance of the contract any notification by DOL, within 5 business days of such notification, that it has not entered into a labor compliance agreement within a reasonable period, or is not meeting the terms of an existing labor compliance agreement, and allow the subcontractor to provide an explanation and supporting information for the delay or non-compliance.
(2) The contractor shall afford subcontractors an opportunity to provide to the contractor any additional information,
(3) The Contractor shall, in a timely manner, consider information obtained from subcontractors pursuant to paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this clause, and determine whether action is necessary,
(4) Using DOL guidance, the Contractor shall evaluate subcontractor information to determine if action is necessary. Contractors shall consider the following:
(i) The nature of the violations (whether serious, repeated, willful, or pervasive).
(ii) The number of violations.
(iii) Any mitigating circumstances.
(iv) Remedial measures taken to address labor violations, including existence of and compliance with any labor compliance agreements with DOL or other enforcement agency, or whether the subcontractor is still in good faith negotiating such an agreement.
(v) Any advice or assistance provided by DOL.
(5) The Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer of the following information if the Contractor decides to continue the subcontract after having been informed that DOL has advised that the subcontractor has not entered into a labor compliance agreement within a reasonable period or is not meeting the terms of the agreement:
(i) The name of the subcontractor; and
(ii) The basis for the decision.
(e)
(1) The Contractor may consult with DOL representatives for advice and assistance regarding evaluation of subcontractor labor law violation(s), including the need for new or enhanced labor compliance agreements. (Only DOL representatives are available to consult with Contractors regarding subcontractor information. Contracting Officers or Agency Labor Compliance Advisors may assist with identifying the appropriate DOL representatives.).
(2) Absent advice or assistance from DOL, Contractors may proceed with determining responsibility, or during subcontract performance, if action is necessary using available information and business judgment.
(f)
As prescribed in 22.2007(d), insert the following clause:
(a) In each pay period, the Contractor shall provide a document (wage statement also known as pay stub) to all individuals performing work under the contract subject to the wage records requirements under the following statutes:
(1) The Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C chapter 8.
(2) 40 U.S.C. chapter 31, subchapter IV, Wage Rate Requirements (Construction) (formerly known as the Davis Bacon Act).
(3) 41 U.S.C. chapter 67, Service Contract Labor Standards (formerly known as the Service Contract Act of 1965).
(4) Equivalent state laws identified in DOL Guidance for E.O. 13673, which can be found at www._____.
(b) The wage statement shall list hours worked, overtime hours, pay, and any additions made to or deductions made from pay. The wage statement provided to individuals exempt from the overtime compensation requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act need not include a record of hours worked if the Contractor informs the individuals of their overtime exempt status. The wage statement shall be issued every pay period and contain the total number of hours worked in the pay period and the number of those hours that were overtime hours. If the wage statement is not provided weekly and is instead provided bi-weekly or semi-monthly (because the pay period is bi-weekly or semi-monthly), the hours worked and overtime hours contained in the wage statement shall be broken down to correspond to the period (which will almost always be weekly) for which overtime is calculated and paid.
(c) These paycheck transparency requirements shall be deemed to be fulfilled if the Contractor is complying with State or local requirements that the United States
(d) If the Contractor is treating an individual performing work under a contract as an independent contractor, and not as an employee, the Contractor shall provide a document to the individual. The document will inform the individual of this status. The contractor shall provide the document to the individual prior to commencement of work or at the time a contract is established with the individual.
(e) Where a significant portion of the workforce is not fluent in English, the Contractor shall provide the wage statement required in paragraph (b) of this clause and the independent contractor notification required in paragraph (d) of this clause in English and the language(s) with which the workforce is more familiar.
(f) The Contractor shall insert the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (f), in all subcontracts that exceed $500,000, for other than commercially available off-the-shelf items.
As prescribed in 22.2007(e), insert the following clause:
(a) The Contractor hereby agrees that the decision to arbitrate claims arising under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, shall only be made with the voluntary consent of employees or independent contractors after such disputes arise.
(b) This does not apply to—
(1) Employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement negotiated between the Contractor and a labor organization representing the employees; or
(2) Employees or independent contractors who entered into a valid contract to arbitrate prior to the Contractor bidding on a contract containing this clause, implementing Executive Order 13673. This exception does not apply:
(i) If the contractor is permitted to change the terms of the contract with the employee or independent contractor; or
(ii) When the contract with the employee or independent contractor is renegotiated or replaced.
(c) The Contractor shall insert the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (c), in subcontracts that exceed $1,000,000. This paragraph does not apply to subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial items.
The revised and added text reads as follows:
(c)(1) * * *
(xii) 52.222-BB, Compliance with Labor Laws (DATE) (E.O. 13673), if the estimated subcontract value exceeds $500,000, and is for other than commercially available off-the-shelf items.
(xiii) 52.222-XX, Paycheck Transparency (DATE) (E.O. 13673), if the estimated subcontract value exceeds $500,000, and is for other than commercially available off-the-shelf items.
Department of Labor.
Proposed guidance.
The Department of Labor is proposing guidance to assist federal agencies in the implementation of Executive Order 13673, Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces (the Order). The Order was signed by President Barack Obama on July 31, 2014, and it contains several new requirements designed to improve the federal contracting process. The Order seeks to increase efficiency and cost savings in the work performed by parties that contract with the Federal Government by ensuring that the parties are responsible and comply with labor laws. The Order requires federal contractors to report whether there has been any administrative merits determination, civil judgment, or arbitral award or decision rendered against them during the preceding three-year period for violations of any of 14 identified federal labor laws and executive orders or equivalent State laws.
The Order directs the Department of Labor to develop guidance to assist federal agencies in implementing the Order's requirements. Consistent with that direction, this proposed guidance, when final, will: define “administrative merits determination,” “civil judgment,” and “arbitral award or decision,” and provide guidance on what information related to these determinations must be reported by contractors and subcontractors; define “serious,” “repeated,” “willful,” and “pervasive” violations and provide guidance to contracting officers (or contractors with respect to their subcontractors) and Labor Compliance Advisors for assessing reported violations, including mitigating factors to consider; and provide guidance on the Order's paycheck transparency provisions, including identifying those States whose wage statement laws are substantially similar to the Order's wage statement requirement such that providing a worker with a wage statement that complies with any of those State laws satisfies the Order's requirement.
The Order builds on the existing procurement system, and changes required by the Order fit into established contracting practices that are familiar to both procurement officials and the contracting community. In addition, the Department of Labor will provide support directly to contractors and subcontractors so that they understand their obligations under the Order and can come into compliance with federal labor laws without holding up their contract bids. Finally, the Department will work with Labor Compliance Advisors across agencies to minimize the amount of information that contractors have to provide and to help ensure efficient, accurate, and consistent decisions across the government.
The objective of the Order is to help contractors come into compliance with federal labor laws, not to deny them contracts. To this end, this proposed guidance, when final, will provide a roadmap to contracting officers, Labor Compliance Advisors, and the contracting community for assessing contractors' history of labor law compliance with regard to their business integrity and ethics and considering mitigating factors, most notably efforts to remediate any reported labor law violations, including agreements entered into by contractors with enforcement agencies.
Comments must be received on or before July 27, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by ZRIN 1290-ZA02, by either of the following methods:
Contact Kathleen E. Franks, Director, Office of Regulatory and Programmatic Policy, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-2312, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-5959 (this is not a toll-free number). Copies of this proposed guidance may be obtained in alternative formats (large print, Braille, audio tape or disc), upon request, by calling (202) 693-5959 (this is not a toll-free number). TTY/TDD callers may dial toll-free [1-877-889-5627] to obtain information or request materials in alternative formats.
Although most federal contractors comply with applicable laws and provide quality goods and services to the government and taxpayers, a small
Beyond their human cost, these violations create risks to the timely, predictable, and satisfactory delivery of goods and services to the Federal Government, and federal agencies risk poor performance by awarding contracts to companies with histories of labor law violations. Poor workplace conditions lead to lower productivity and creativity, increased workplace disruptions, and increased workforce turnover. For contracting agencies, this means receipt of lower quality products and services, and increased risk of project delays and cost overruns.
Contracting agencies can reduce execution delays and avoid other complications by contracting with contractors with track records of labor law compliance—and by helping to bring contractors with past violations into compliance. Contractors that consistently adhere to labor laws are more likely to have workplace practices that enhance productivity and to deliver goods and services to the Federal Government in a timely, predictable, and satisfactory fashion.
Moreover, by ensuring that its contractors are in compliance, the Federal Government can level the playing field for contractors who comply with the law. Those contractors who invest in their workers' safety and maintain a fair and equitable workplace should not have to compete with contractors who offer slightly lower bids—based on savings from skirting labor laws—and then ultimately deliver poor performance to taxpayers. By contracting with employers who are in compliance with labor laws, the Federal Government can ensure that taxpayers' money supports jobs in which workers have safe workplaces, receive the family leave they are entitled to, get paid the wages they have earned, and do not face unlawful workplace discrimination.
The Order instructs federal agencies to work together to implement new contracting requirements and processes. The Order creates detailed implementation roles for the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council), the Department of Labor (Department), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the General Services Administration (GSA). These agencies will implement the Order in stages, on a prioritized basis.
The Order gives the Department several specific implementation and coordination duties. The Order directs the Secretary of Labor (the Secretary) to develop guidance that defines the “administrative merits determinations,” “civil judgments,” and “arbitral awards or decisions” that contractors and subcontractors must report,
This proposed guidance satisfies most of the Department's responsibilities for issuing guidance, and the Department will publish at a later date a second guidance that satisfies its remaining responsibilities. Section I below discusses the reasons for the Order and summarizes its requirements. Section II defines the terms “administrative merits determination,” “civil judgment,” and “arbitral award or decision,” and provides guidance regarding the types of information that contractors and subcontractors should report under the Order. Section III defines the terms “serious,” “repeated,” “willful,” and “pervasive.” It also provides guidance on how reported violations should be assessed and what mitigating factors should be considered. Section IV provides guidance on the Order's paycheck transparency provisions. It identifies and solicits comment on two options for determining those States whose wage statement laws are substantially similar to the Order's wage statement requirement. Section V is an invitation to comment, and Section VI describes next steps.
This proposed guidance also provides guidelines for how contracting officers and Labor Compliance Advisors may give appropriate consideration to determinations and agreements made between contractors and enforcement agencies. In addition, the Department will publish in the
As part of the development of this proposed guidance, the Department has engaged with a range of interested parties (including contractors,
Consistent with its efforts to engage with interested parties regarding the Order, the Department, in its discretion, is soliciting public comment on this proposed guidance in the manner and before the date specified above. Agencies are not required to provide notice and an opportunity for public comment on guidance documents before they are adopted, as is generally required for formal legislative rulemaking and other regulatory action.
The Order states that the Federal Government will promote economy and efficiency in procurement by contracting with responsible sources that comply with labor laws.
By statute, contracting agencies are required to award contracts to responsible sources.
Part 9 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) implements this statutory “responsibility” requirement. The FAR states that “[p]urchases shall be made from, and contracts shall be awarded to, responsible prospective contractors only.” 48 CFR 9.103(a). In accordance with the statutory definition of “responsible source,” the FAR states that “[t]o be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must . . . [h]ave a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics. . . .” 48 CFR 9.104-1. In addition, the FAR requires contractors on certain contracts to disclose to contracting officers any “credible evidence” that the agents of the contractor or any of its subcontractors have committed violations of federal criminal laws involving fraud, conflict of interest, bribery, or gratuities or of the civil False Claims Act in connection with the contract. 48 CFR 52.203-13;
The President issued the Order, as stated therein, pursuant to his authority under “the Constitution and the laws of the United States,” expressly including the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (Procurement Act), 40 U.S.C. 101
The Order builds on the existing procurement system by instructing contracting officers to consider a contractor's history of labor laws violations, if any, as a factor in determining if the contractor has a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics and may therefore be found to be a responsible source eligible for contract award.
• The Fair Labor Standards Act (the FLSA);
• the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act);
• the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA);
• the National Labor Relations Act (the NLRA);
• 40 U.S.C. chapter 31, subchapter IV, also known as the Davis-Bacon Act (the DBA);
• 41 U.S.C. chapter 67, also known as the Service Contract Act (the SCA);
• Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965 (Equal Employment Opportunity);
• section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
• the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1972 and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974;
• the Family and Medical Leave Act (the FMLA);
• title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII);
• the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the ADA);
• the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (the ADEA); and
• Executive Order 13658 of February 12, 2014 (Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors).
Prior to making an award, contracting officers shall, as part of the responsibility determination, provide contractors with an opportunity to disclose any steps taken to correct any reported violations or improve compliance with the Labor Laws, including any agreements entered into with an enforcement agency.
Similar requirements apply to subcontractors where the estimated value of the supplies acquired and services required in the subcontract exceeds $500,000 and the subcontract is not for commercially available off-the-shelf items. Under the Order, contracting officers must require that, at the time of execution of the contract, contractors represent that they will require subcontractors performing covered subcontracts to disclose any administrative merits determination, civil judgment, or arbitral award or decision rendered against the subcontractor within the preceding three-year period for violations of any of the Labor Laws.
The Order's reporting requirement continues after an award is made. Semi-annually during the performance of the contract, contracting agencies shall require contractors to update the information provided about their own Labor Laws violations and to obtain the required information for covered subcontracts.
The Order requires each contracting agency to designate a senior agency official to be an LCA to provide consistent guidance on whether contractors' actions rise to the level of a lack of integrity or business ethics.
The Order directs the FAR Council to propose such rules and regulations and issue such orders as are deemed necessary and appropriate to carry out the Order.
The Order also contains two paycheck transparency requirements. First, the Order requires contracting agencies to ensure that, for contracts subject to the Order, provisions in solicitations and clauses in contracts shall provide that, in each pay period, contractors provide all individuals performing work under the contract for whom they are required to maintain wage records under the FLSA, DBA, SCA, or equivalent State laws, with a document with information concerning that individual's hours worked, overtime hours, pay, and any additions made to or deductions made from pay (
Finally, the Order requires that, in developing the guidance and proposing to amend the FAR, the Secretary and the FAR Council shall minimize, to the extent practicable, the burden of complying with the Order for federal contractors and subcontractors and in particular small entities, including small businesses, as defined in section
For all covered procurement contracts (defined below), the Order requires contracting agencies to include provisions in their solicitations requiring that the contractor represent, to the best of its knowledge and belief, whether there have been any administrative merits determinations, civil judgments, or arbitral awards or decisions rendered against it within the preceding three years for violations of the Labor Laws. Contracting agencies shall further require contractors, at or before execution of the covered procurement contract, to represent that they will require each subcontractor performing a covered subcontract (also defined below) to report whether there have been any administrative merits determinations, civil judgments, or arbitral awards or decisions rendered against the subcontractor within the preceding three years for violations of the Labor Laws. During the performance of the covered contract, the Order requires contractors to update their disclosures semi-annually and obtain similarly updated information from their subcontractors.
The Order requires the Department to define in guidance the meaning of “administrative merits determination,” “civil judgment,” and “arbitral award or decision.” This section of the proposed guidance defines those terms and provides guidance on who must report Labor Laws violations under the Order, what triggers the reporting obligations, and what particular categories of information must be reported under the Order.
The FAR Council's proposed regulations would require any contractor that responds to a solicitation for a covered procurement contract to represent whether it has any Labor Laws violations reportable under the Order. The FAR Council's proposed regulations would further require prospective contractors for whom a contracting officer has initiated the responsibility determination process, and who have represented that they have Labor Laws violation(s), to disclose additional information about the violation(s). For purposes of this proposed guidance and coextensive with section 2(a)(i) of the Order, a “covered procurement contract” is a procurement contract for goods and services, including construction, where the estimated value of the supplies acquired and services required exceeds $500,000.
The Order applies to contracting activities by executive agencies.
As used in this proposed guidance, the term “contract” has the same meaning as it has under the FAR, 48 CFR 2.101.
In this proposed guidance, references to “contractors” and “subcontractors” include entities that hold covered contracts as well as “offerors,” meaning any entity that bids for a covered contract. The term “entity” is properly understood to include both organizations and individuals that apply for and receive covered contracts.
The Order creates disclosure requirements for contractors and subcontractors performing or bidding on covered contracts. Under the Order, contractors and subcontractors must report administrative merits determinations, civil judgments, and arbitral awards or decisions that have been rendered against them within the previous three years for a violation of the Labor Laws.
The relevant three-year period is the three-year period preceding the date of the offer (
The Order's reporting requirements apply to administrative merits determinations, civil judgments, and arbitral awards or decisions “rendered against the [offeror or subcontractor] within the preceding 3-year period.”
Administrative merits determinations, civil judgments, and arbitral awards or decisions that must be reported under the Order include those issued for violations of State laws equivalent to the fourteen federal Labor Laws listed in the Order.
Enforcement agencies issue notices, findings, and other documents when they determine that any of the Labor Laws have been violated. For purposes of this proposed guidance, “enforcement agency” means any agency that administers the federal Labor Laws, such as the Department and its agencies, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission,
For purposes of the Order, the term “administrative merits determination” means any of the following notices or findings—whether final or subject to appeal or further review—issued by an enforcement agency following an investigation that indicates that the contractor or subcontractor violated any provision of the Labor Laws:
(a) From the Department's Wage and Hour Division:
• A WH-56 “Summary of Unpaid Wages” form;
• a letter indicating that an investigation disclosed a violation of sections six or seven of the FLSA or a violation of the FMLA, SCA, DBA, or Executive Order 13658;
• a WH-103 “Employment of Minors Contrary to The Fair Labor Standards Act” notice;
• a letter, notice, or other document assessing civil monetary penalties;
• a letter that recites violations concerning the payment of special minimum wages to workers with disabilities under section 14(c) of the FLSA or revokes a certificate that authorized the payment of special minimum wages;
• a WH-561 “Citation and Notification of Penalty” for violations under the OSH Act's field sanitation or temporary labor camp standards;
• an order of reference filed with an administrative law judge.
(b) from the Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or any State agency designated to administer an OSHA-approved State Plan:
• A citation;
• an imminent danger notice;
• a notice of failure to abate; or
• any State equivalent;
(c) from the Department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs:
• A show cause notice for failure to comply with the requirements of Executive Order 11246, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1972, or the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974;
(d) from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the EEOC):
• A letter of determination that reasonable cause exists to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred or is occurring; or
• a civil action filed on behalf of the EEOC;
(e) from the National Labor Relations Board:
• A complaint issued by any Regional Director;
(f) a complaint filed by or on behalf of an enforcement agency with a federal or State court, an administrative judge, or an administrative law judge alleging that the contractor or subcontractor violated any provision of the Labor Laws; or
(g) any order or finding from any administrative judge, administrative law judge, the Department's Administrative Review Board, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission or State equivalent, or the National Labor Relations Board that the contractor or subcontractor violated any provision of the Labor Laws.
The above definition provides seven categories of documents, notices, and findings from enforcement agencies that constitute the administrative merits determinations that must be reported under the Order. The list is an exhaustive one, meaning that if a document does not fall within one of categories (a) through (g) above, the Department does not consider it to be an “administrative merits determination” for purposes of the Order.
In addition, the Department will publish at a later date a second proposed guidance that identifies an eighth category of administrative merits determinations: The documents, notices, and findings issued by State enforcement agencies when they find violations of the State laws equivalent to the federal Labor Laws.
Categories (a) through (e) in the definition list types of administrative merits determinations that are issued by specific enforcement agencies. Categories (f) and (g) describe types of administrative merits determinations that are common to multiple enforcement agencies. Category (f) is necessary because it is possible that an enforcement agency will not have issued a notice or finding following its investigation that falls within categories (a) through (e) prior to filing a complaint in court.
The administrative merits determinations listed in the definition are issued following an investigation by the relevant enforcement agency. Administrative merits determinations are not limited to notices and findings
Certain “complaints” issued by enforcement agencies are included in the definition of “administrative merits determination.” The complaints issued by enforcement agencies included in the definition are not akin to complaints filed by private parties to initiate lawsuits in Federal or state courts. Each complaint included in the definition represents a finding by an enforcement agency following a full investigation that a Labor Law was violated; in contrast, a complaint filed by a private party in a Federal or state court represents allegations made by that plaintiff and not any enforcement agency. Moreover, employee complaints made to enforcement agencies (such as a complaint for failure to pay overtime wages filed with the Department's Wage and Hour Division or a charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC) are not administrative merits determinations.
For purposes of the Order, the term “civil judgment” means any judgment or order entered by any federal or State court in which the court determined that the contractor or subcontractor violated any provision of the Labor Laws, or enjoined or restrained the contractor or subcontractor from violating any provision of the Labor Laws. Civil judgment includes a judgment or order that is not final or is subject to appeal.
A civil judgment could be the result of an action filed in court by or on behalf of an enforcement agency or, for those Labor Laws that establish a private right of action, by a private party or parties. The judgment or order in which the court determined that a violation occurred may be the result of a jury trial, a bench trial, or a motion for judgment as a matter of law, such as a summary judgment motion. Even a decision granting partial summary judgment may be a civil judgment if, for example, the decision finds a violation of the Labor Laws but leaves resolution of the amount of damages for later in the proceedings. Likewise, a preliminary injunction can be a civil judgment if the order enjoins or restrains a violation of the Labor Laws. Civil judgments include consent judgments and default judgments to the extent that there is a determination in the judgment that any of the Labor Laws have been violated, or the judgment enjoins or restrains the contractor or subcontractor from violating any provision of the Labor Laws. A private settlement where the lawsuit is dismissed by the court without any judgment being entered is not a civil judgment.
Civil judgments do not include judgments or orders issued by an administrative law judge or other administrative tribunals, such as those identified in the definition of administrative merits determination. Such judgments and orders may be administrative merits determinations. If, however, a federal or State court issues a judgment or order affirming an administrative merits determination, then the court's decision is a civil judgment.
Civil judgments include a judgment or order finding that a contractor or subcontractor violated any of the Labor Laws even if the order or decision is subject to further review in the same proceeding, is not final, can be appealed, or has been appealed. As set forth below, when contractors and subcontractors report civil judgments, they may also submit any additional information that they believe may be helpful in assessing the violations at issue (including the fact that the civil judgment has been appealed). Additionally, contractors and subcontractors will have opportunities to provide information regarding any mitigating factors.
For purposes of the Order, the term “arbitral award or decision” means any award or order by an arbitrator or arbitral panel in which the arbitrator or arbitral panel determined that the contractor or subcontractor violated any provision of the Labor Laws, or enjoined or restrained the contractor or subcontractor from violating any provision of the Labor Laws. Arbitral award or decision includes an award or order that is not final or is subject to being confirmed, modified, or vacated by a court.
Arbitral award or decision includes an arbitral award or decision regardless of whether it is issued by one arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators and even if the arbitral proceedings were private or confidential.
Arbitral award or decision also includes an arbitral award or decision finding that a contractor or subcontractor violated any of the Labor Laws even if the award or decision is subject to further review in the same proceeding, is not final, or is subject to being confirmed, modified, or vacated by a court. As set forth below, when contractors and subcontractors report arbitral awards or decisions, they may also submit any additional information that they believe may be helpful in assessing the violations at issue (including the fact that they have sought to have the award or decision vacated or modified). Additionally, contractors and subcontractors will have opportunities to provide information regarding any mitigating factors.
If a contractor or subcontractor appeals or challenges an administrative merits determination, civil judgment, and/or arbitral award or decision, there may be successive administrative merits determinations, civil judgments, and/or arbitral awards or decisions that arise from the same underlying violation. For example, if a contractor or subcontractor receives an OSHA citation and appeals that citation, it may receive an order from an administrative law judge (ALJ) concerning that citation. Similarly, if a contractor or subcontractor receives an adverse decision from the Department's Administrative Review Board (ARB) and challenges the decision in federal court, it may receive a court judgment concerning that decision.
If a contractor or subcontractor receives, during the preceding three-year period, successive administrative merits determinations, civil judgments, and/or arbitral awards or decisions arising from the same underlying violation, it need not report the violation if, at the time of reporting, the determination that there was a violation of a Labor Law has been reversed or vacated in its entirety. If the determination that there was a violation of a Labor Law is later reinstated on
If a subsequent decision concerning the same underlying violation upholds or does not completely reverse or vacate the finding of violation, the contractor or subcontractor should report only the administrative merits determination, civil judgment, or arbitral award or decision that is the most recent at the time of reporting. Thus, in the first example above, if the ALJ affirms the OSHA citation in whole or in part, the contractor or subcontractor must report the more recent ALJ order but need not report the original citation. In the second example above, if the federal court affirms the ARB's decision, or modifies it but does not vacate it in its entirety, the contractor or subcontractor should report the more recent court order and need not report the original ARB decision.
If, however, the contractor or subcontractor appeals or challenges only part of an administrative merits determination, civil judgment, or arbitral award or decision, it must continue to report the original administrative merits determination, civil judgment, or arbitral award or decision even if a successive administrative merits determination, civil judgment, or arbitral award or decision has been issued. For example, if, within the preceding three-year period, a district court finds a contractor or subcontractor liable for Title VII and FLSA violations, and the contractor or subcontractor appeals only the Title VII judgment to the court of appeals, it must continue to report the district court decision (containing the finding of an FLSA violation) even if a subsequent court of appeals decision is rendered concerning the Title VII violation.
If the contractor or subcontractor reported an administrative merits determination, civil judgment, or arbitral award or decision before being awarded a covered contract, and a successive administrative merits determination, civil judgment, or arbitral award or decision arising from the same underlying violation is rendered during the performance of the contract and affirms that the contractor or subcontractor committed the violation, the successive administrative merits determination, civil judgment, or arbitral award or decision is an administrative merits determination, civil judgment, or arbitral award or decision within the meaning of this guidance and the Order. Therefore, the contractor or subcontractor must report the most recent determination, judgment, award or decision when it updates its disclosures at semi-annual intervals during performance of the covered contract.
The following sections provide guidance on what information must be reported at different stages of the contracting process. When finalized, the FAR Council regulation will set forth the specific requirements for what must be reported at each stage, and how such information is to be reported.
When a contractor bids on a solicitation for a covered procurement contract, the Order requires it to report to the contracting agency issuing the solicitation whether any administrative merits determinations, civil judgments, or arbitral awards or decisions have been rendered against it within the preceding three-year period.
If a contractor reaches the stage in the process at which a responsibility determination is made, and that contractor responded affirmatively at the initial representation stage, the contracting officer will require additional information about that contractor's Labor Laws violation(s). For each administrative merits determination, civil judgment, or arbitral award or decision that must be reported, the contractor will provide:
• The Labor Law that was violated;
• the case number, inspection number, charge number, docket number, or other unique identification number;
• the date that the determination, judgment, award, or decision was rendered; and
• the name of the court, arbitrator(s), agency, board, or commission that rendered it.
The contractor may also provide such additional information as the contractor deems necessary to demonstrate its responsibility, such as mitigating circumstances, remedial measures (to include labor compliance agreements), and other steps taken to achieve compliance with the Labor Laws. Mitigating factors are discussed below.
The Order requires contractors to update the information reported to contracting agencies semi-annually during performance of the covered procurement contract.
The Order provides that contractors will require their subcontractors performing covered subcontracts to report administrative merits determinations, civil judgments, or arbitral awards or decisions rendered against them within the preceding three-year period for violations of any of the Labor Laws.
To facilitate these assessments, given that contractors may have more difficulty than contracting officers and LCAs in obtaining copies of administrative merits determinations, civil judgments, and arbitral awards or decisions, the FAR Council's proposed regulations would require contractors to include provisions in subcontracts requiring that subcontractors who report violations of Labor Laws—and for which a responsibility determination has been initiated—provide a copy of the relevant administrative merits determination(s), civil judgment(s), and arbitral award(s) or decision(s), as well as any notice from the Department advising that the subcontractor either has not entered into a labor compliance agreement within a reasonable period of time or is not meeting the terms of an existing agreement. The preamble to the FAR Council's proposed regulations indicates that the subcontractor reporting requirement may be phased in through a delayed implementation to allow the contracting community to become familiar with the Order's requirements and procedures. To this end, contractors are encouraged to contact the Department for assistance in obtaining information necessary to assess any Labor Laws violations reported by their subcontractors. The Department will set up a structure within the Department to be available to consult with contractors in carrying out these responsibilities, as well as provide guidance as needed to contractors and subcontractors in compliance with the requirements of the Order. The Department will also be available to assist subcontractors directly in carrying out their responsibilities under the Order.
The above paragraphs describe the duties of contractors and subcontractors as set forth in the text of the proposed FAR rule. However, the Department recognizes that the FAR Council is considering allowing contractors to direct their subcontractors to report violations to the Department, which would then assess the violations.
The Order directs the Department to develop guidance “to assist agencies in determining whether administrative merits determinations, arbitral awards or decisions, or civil judgments were issued for serious, repeated, willful, or pervasive violations” of the Labor Laws for purposes of implementing the final rule issued by the FAR Council.
This section of the proposed guidance defines the terms “serious,” “repeated,” “willful,” and “pervasive” and provides guidance on their meanings and how violations of the Labor Laws should be weighed. While contracting officers and LCAs can seek additional information from the Department to provide context, in utilizing this guidance to determine whether violations are serious, repeated, willful, or pervasive, contracting officers should rely on the information contained in the administrative merits determinations, arbitral awards or decisions, and civil judgments.
All violations of federal labor laws are serious, but in this context the Department has, pursuant to the Order, identified certain violations as “serious,” “willful,” “repeated,” and “pervasive.” This subset of all labor violations represents the violations that are most concerning and bear on an assessment of a contractor's or subcontractor's integrity and business ethics. The Department has purposely excluded from consideration violations that could be characterized as inadvertent or minimally impactful. In most cases, even for violations subject to disclosure and consideration under the Order, a single violation of one of the Labor Laws will not give rise to a determination of lack of responsibility. In contrast, as explained more fully below, pervasive violations and violations of particular gravity, among others, will in most cases result in the need for a labor compliance agreement.
Each contractor's disclosed violations of Labor Laws will be assessed on a case-by-case basis in light of the totality of the circumstances, including the severity of the violation or violations, the size of the contractor, and any mitigating factors. The extent to which a contractor has remediated violations of Labor Laws, including agreements entered into by contractors with enforcement agencies, will be given particular weight in this regard. In fact, the vast majority of administrative merits determinations (in some enforcement agencies, as much as 90 percent) result in settlement agreements between employers and enforcement agencies.
The Department will work with LCAs across contracting agencies to help ensure efficient, accurate, and consistent decisions across the government.
Of the federal Labor Laws, only the OSH Act provides a statutory standard for what constitutes a “serious” violation, and this standard also applies to OSHA-approved State Plans. The other federal Labor Laws do not have statutory standards for what constitutes a serious violation. According to the Order, where no statutory standards exist, the Department's guidance for “serious” violations must take into account “the number of employees affected, the degree of risk posed or actual harm done by the violation to the health, safety, or well-being of a worker, the amount of damages incurred or fines or penalties assessed with regard to the violation, and other considerations as the Secretary finds appropriate.”
Accordingly, a violation is “serious” for purposes of the Order if it involves at least one of the following:
• An OSH Act or OSHA-approved State Plan citation was designated as serious, there was a notice of failure to abate an OSH Act violation, or an imminent danger notice was issued under the OSH Act or an OSHA-approved State Plan;
• The affected workers comprised 25% or more of the workforce at the worksite;
• Fines and penalties of at least $5,000 were assessed or back wages of at least $10,000 were due or injunctive relief was imposed by an enforcement agency or a court;
• The contractor's or subcontractor's conduct violated MSPA or the child labor provisions of the FLSA and caused or contributed to the death or serious injury of one or more workers;
• Employment of a minor who was too young to be legally employed or in violation of a Hazardous Occupations Order;
• The contractor or subcontractor engaged in an adverse employment action (including discharge, refusal to hire, suspension, demotion, or threat) or is responsible for unlawful harassment against one or more workers for exercising any right protected by any of the Labor Laws;
• The findings of the relevant enforcement agency, court, arbitrator, or arbitral panel support a conclusion that the contractor or subcontractor engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination or systemic discrimination;
• The findings of the relevant enforcement agency, court, arbitrator, or arbitral panel support a conclusion that the contractor or subcontractor interfered with the enforcement agency's investigation; or
• The contractor or subcontractor breached the material terms of any agreement or settlement entered into with an enforcement agency, or violated any court order, any administrative order by an enforcement agency, or any arbitral award.
Section 17(k) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 666(k), defines a violation as serious, in relevant part, “if there is a substantial probability that [the hazard created by the violation could result in] death or serious physical harm . . . unless the employer did not, and could not with the exercise of reasonable diligence know” of the existence of the violation. In other words, a “violation may be determined to be serious where, although the accident itself is merely possible * * *, there is a substantial probability of serious injury if it does occur.”
In light of this clear statutory definition, a violation of the OSH Act is serious if the contractor or subcontractor received a citation for a violation designated as “serious” under the OSH Act or an OSHA-approved State Plan, or an imminent danger notice under the OSH Act or an OSHA-approved State Plan. Imminent danger notices are issued only when “a danger exists which could reasonably be expected to cause death or serious physical harm immediately or before the imminence of such danger can be eliminated through the enforcement procedures otherwise provided by [the OSH Act].” 29 U.S.C. 662(a). Because such notices are issued only for violations that imminently threaten to cause death or serious physical harm, imminent danger notices are by definition issued only for serious violations of the OSH Act, and thus constitute serious violations under the Order.
The OSH Act separately prohibits retaliation against workers for exercising any right under the Act. 29 U.S.C. 660(c). As with retaliation under other Labor Laws, an OSH Act whistleblower violation will be a serious violation where the contractor or subcontractor engaged in an adverse employment action (including discharge, refusal to hire, suspension, demotion, or threat). Similarly, a contractor or subcontractor that has interfered with an OSHA inspection or investigation will be deemed to have committed a serious violation, as will a contractor or subcontractor that has breached the material terms of any OSHA settlement agreement, violated any court order under the OSH Act, or received a notice that it has failed to abate any cited OSHA violation.
Consistent with the Order's directive to consider the number of employees affected, a violation is serious when the workers affected by the violation comprised 25% or more of the workforce at the worksite. The Department believes that: using a percentage of the workforce instead of an absolute number of workers is a more useful way of considering the effects of a violation, given that employers of various sizes will have disclosure obligations under the Order; 25% represents a significant percentage of workers at a particular site, and as such, that the underlying violation is a serious one; and 25% strikes an appropriate balance by effectively excluding individualized or localized violations from this category of “serious” while capturing more widespread violations.
For purposes of this 25% threshold, “workforce” means all individuals employed by the contractor or subcontractor. It does not include workers of another entity, unless the underlying violation of the Labor Laws includes a finding that the contractor or subcontractor is a joint employer of the workers that the other entity employs at the worksite.
For purposes of this 25% threshold, “worksite” means the physical location or group of locations where the workers affected by the violations work and where the contractor or subcontractor conducts its business. For example, if the contractor or subcontractor conducts its business at a single building, or a single office within an office building, that building or office will comprise the worksite. However, if the contractor or subcontractor conducts business activities in several offices in one building, or in several buildings in a campus or industrial park, the worksite consists of all of the offices or buildings in which the business is conducted. On the other hand, if a contractor or subcontractor has two office buildings in different parts of the same city, and a violation affects workers in one building, the worksite is the one building where the violation took place. For violations that affect workers with no fixed worksite, such as construction workers, transportation workers, and workers who perform services at various customers' locations, the worksite is the site to which they are assigned as their home base, from which their work is assigned, or to which they report.
For purposes of this 25% threshold, “affected workers” means the workers who were individually impacted by the violation. For example, affected workers include workers who were not paid wages due, were denied leave or benefits, were denied a job, a promotion, or other benefits due to discrimination, or were harmed by an unlawful policy.
The Department specifically seeks comments on this category of serious violations.
Consistent with the Order's directive to take into account “the amount of damages incurred or fines or penalties assessed,” a violation is serious if it resulted in $5,000 or more in fines and penalties, or $10,000 or more in back wages. Such amounts, in the Department's view, reflect a violation of sufficient gravity to be deemed serious.
Administrative merits determinations finding violations of the laws enforced by the Department's Wage and Hour Division, for example, may be more likely to implicate these thresholds than those issued by other enforcement agencies. According to recent enforcement data from the Wage and Hour Division, these thresholds will capture only a minority of the violations of the Labor Laws enforced by Wage and Hour, and a smaller minority of the cases investigated by it under those laws. According to recent data, Wage and Hour assessed penalties in only a small minority of the cases in which it made a finding; in the small number of cases in which penalties were assessed, they amounted to $5,000 or more only approximately one-fourth of the time. Similarly, back wages were due in less than half of the cases in which Wage and Hour made a finding, and in cases in which back wages were due, they
Examples of “fines and penalties” include civil monetary penalties assessed by the Department under MSPA or under the minimum wage, overtime, and child labor provisions of the FLSA. Fines and penalties do not include back wages, compensatory damages, liquidated damages under the FLSA, or statutory damages under MSPA. However, liquidated damages under the ADEA and punitive damages are included in fines and penalties for purposes of this threshold.
The threshold amounts for fines and penalties are measured by the amount “assessed.” If an administrative merits determination, for example, assesses $6,000 in civil monetary penalties against a contractor or subcontractor but later that amount is reduced to $4,000 in settlement negotiations or only $4,000 is collected, the underlying violation is serious based on the assessed amount. The Department believes that the amount assessed is a better indication of seriousness because civil monetary penalties may be reduced for reasons unrelated to the seriousness of the violation. If the amount assessed was later reduced, the contractor or subcontractor should provide that information as a possible mitigating factor.
When considering whether these thresholds are met, the total fines and penalties or the total back wages resulting from the Labor Laws violation should be considered. In cases where multiple provisions of a Labor Law have been violated, the fines and penalties assessed or the back wages due should not be parsed and separately attributed to each provision violated. For example, if the Department's FLSA investigation discloses violations of the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime provisions and back wages are due for both violations, the total back wages due determines whether the $10,000 threshold is met. Likewise, if an investigation discloses three violations of the same MSPA provision or violations of three different MSPA provisions and each violation results in assessed civil monetary penalties of $2,000, the MSPA violation is serious because the assessed penalties total $6,000.
A violation is also serious if injunctive relief was imposed by an enforcement agency, a court, or an arbitrator or arbitral panel. Injunctive relief is an order from an enforcement agency or court either to take a certain action or to refrain from taking a certain action. For example, an order to reinstate a wrongfully terminated worker, to modify discriminatory hiring practices, to make a location accessible to individuals with disabilities, to reinstate workers who are attempting to organize a union, or to refrain from intimidating workers during an enforcement agency's investigation would constitute injunctive relief.
Violations of the health and safety provisions of MSPA and the child labor provisions of the FLSA may have serious health and safety implications. In the most serious cases, violations of these statutes may result in death or serious injury to one or more workers. Consistent with the Order's directive to consider “the degree of risk posed or actual harm done by the violation to health, safety, or well-being of a worker,” MSPA or child labor violations that cause or contribute to the death or serious injury of one or more workers are serious under the Order. For these purposes, serious injury has the same meaning as in the FLSA's child labor provisions as administered by the Department's Wage and Hour Division.
Consistent with the Order's directive to consider “the degree of risk posed or actual harm done by the violation to health, safety, or well-being of a worker,” any violation of the FLSA's child labor provisions where the minor is too young to be legally employed or is employed in violation of any of the Secretary's Hazardous Occupations Orders is a serious violation. Such violations do not include situations where minors are permitted to perform the work at issue but who perform the work outside the hours permitted by law. Rather, it refers to minors who, by virtue of their age, are legally prohibited from being employed or are not permitted to be employed to perform the work at issue. Thus, for example, the employment of any minor under the age of 18 to perform a hazardous non-agricultural job, any minor under the age of 16 to perform a hazardous farm job, or any minor under the age of 14 to perform non-farm work where he or she does not meet a statutory exception otherwise permitting the work would be a serious violation. This reflects the particularly serious dangers that can result from the prohibited employment of underage minors. Conversely, the employment of, for example, a 14 or 15 year-old minor in excess of three hours outside school hours on a school day in a non-hazardous, non-agricultural job in which the child is otherwise permitted to work would not be a serious violation for purposes of the Order, even though the work violates the FLSA's child labor provisions.
Consistent with the Order's directive to consider “the degree of risk posed or actual harm done by the violation to health, safety, or well-being of a worker,” a violation involving an adverse employment action or unlawful harassment against one or more workers for exercising any right protected by the Labor Laws is a serious violation. For these purposes, adverse employment actions include discharge, refusal to hire, suspension, demotion, or threats. Examples include disciplining workers for attempting to organize a union, demoting workers for testifying in an investigation, lawsuit, or proceeding involving one of the Labor Laws, firing or demoting workers who take leave under the FMLA, and threatening workers with adverse consequences—such as termination or referral to immigration or criminal authorities—for making a complaint about potential violations of Labor Laws. These are serious violations because they both reflect a disregard by an employer for its obligations under the Labor Laws and undermine the Labor Laws by making workers reluctant to exercise their rights for fear of retaliation.
Consistent with the Order's directive to consider “the degree of risk posed or actual harm done by the violation to health, safety, or well-being of a worker,” a Labor Laws violation is serious if the findings of the relevant enforcement agency, court, arbitrator, or arbitral panel support a conclusion that the contractor or subcontractor engaged
Violations of the Labor Laws in which the findings of the relevant enforcement agency, court, arbitrator, or arbitral panel support a conclusion that the contractor or subcontractor engaged in interference with the enforcement agency's investigation also are serious under the Order. Interference can take a number of forms, such as denial of access by a contractor or subcontractor to an enforcement agency to conduct an on-site investigation, evaluation, or review; refusal to submit required documents to an enforcement agency or comply with its request for information; threats to workers who speak to enforcement agency investigators; falsification or destruction of records; lying or making misrepresentations to investigators; and threatening workers with termination or referral to immigration or criminal authorities if they do not return back wages received as part of an investigation. Like retaliation, interference with investigations is intentional conduct that frustrates the enforcement of the Labor Laws and therefore, in the Department's view, is a serious violation.
Violations of the Labor Laws involving a breach of the material terms of any agreement or settlement, or a violation of a court or administrative order or arbitral award, are serious under the Order. Such violations are serious because an employer that is a government contractor or subcontractor is expected to comply with orders by a court or administrative agency and to adhere to the terms of any agreements or settlements into which it enters. A contractor's or subcontractor's failure to do so may indicate that it will similarly disregard its contractual obligations to, or agreements with, a contracting agency (or a contractor in case of a subcontractor), which could result in delays, increased costs, and other adverse consequences. A contractor or subcontractor will not, however, be found to have committed a serious violation if the agreement, settlement, award, or administrative order in question has been stayed pending an appeal or other further proceeding.
For a table containing selected examples of serious violations, see Appendix A.
The Order provides that the standard for willful should “incorporate existing statutory standards” to the extent such standards exist.
• For purposes of a citation issued pursuant to the OSH Act or an OSHA-approved State Plan, the citation at issue was designated as willful or any equivalent State designation (
• For purposes of the FLSA (including the Equal Pay Act), the administrative merits determination sought or assessed back wages for greater than two years or sought or assessed civil monetary penalties for a willful violation, or there was a civil judgment or arbitral award or decision finding the contractor or subcontractor liable for back wages for greater than two years or affirming the assessment of civil monetary penalties for a willful violation;
• For purposes of the ADEA, the enforcement agency, court, arbitrator, or arbitral panel assessed or awarded liquidated damages;
• For purposes of Title VII or the ADA, the enforcement agency, court, arbitrator, or arbitral panel assessed or awarded punitive damages for a violation where the contractor or subcontractor engaged in a discriminatory practice with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved individual; or
• For purposes of any of the other Labor Laws, the findings of the relevant enforcement agency, court, arbitrator, or arbitral panel support a conclusion that the contractor or subcontractor knew that its conduct was prohibited by any of the Labor Laws or showed reckless disregard for, or acted with plain indifference to, whether its conduct was prohibited by one or more requirements of the Labor Laws.
The term “willful” has well-established meanings under the OSH Act, the FLSA, and the ADEA. These meanings are consistent with the standard provided in the Order. Violations of the OSH Act, the FLSA, and the ADEA are willful under the Order if they fit these well-established meanings.
Under the OSH Act, a violation is willful where an employer has demonstrated either an intentional disregard for the requirements of the OSH Act or a plain indifference to its requirements.
Similarly, under the FLSA, a violation is willful where the employer knew that its conduct was prohibited by the FLSA or showed reckless disregard for the FLSA's requirements.
Likewise, under the ADEA, a violation is willful when the employer knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the ADEA.
Violations of Title VII or the ADA are “willful” under the Order if the enforcement agency, court, arbitrator, or arbitral panel assessed or awarded punitive damages for a violation where the contractor or subcontractor engaged in a discriminatory practice with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved individual. Punitive damages are appropriate in cases under Title VII or the ADA where the contractor or subcontractor engaged in intentional discrimination with “malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved individual.” 42 U.S.C. 1981a. This means that a managerial agent of the contractor or subcontractor, acting within the scope of employment, made a decision that was in the face of a perceived risk of violating federal law, and the contractor or subcontractor cannot prove that the manager's action was contrary to its good faith efforts to comply with federal law.
For violations of Labor Laws other than the OSH Act, the FLSA, the ADEA, Title VII, and the ADA, a violation is willful for purposes of the Order if the findings of the relevant enforcement agency, court, arbitrator, or arbitral panel support a conclusion that the contractor or subcontractor knew that its conduct was prohibited by the Labor Laws or showed reckless disregard for, or acted with plain indifference to, whether its conduct was prohibited by Labor Laws.
Generally, willfulness will be found in one of two circumstances. One is where the findings of the enforcement agency, court, arbitrator, or arbitral panel support a conclusion that the contractor or subcontractor knew that its conduct was prohibited by law, yet engaged in the conduct anyway. Knowledge can be inferred from the factual findings or legal conclusions contained in the administrative merits determination, civil judgment, or arbitral award or decision. For example, willfulness will typically be found where the administrative merits determination, civil judgment, or arbitral award or decision supports a conclusion that a contractor or subcontractor was previously advised by responsible government officials that its conduct was not lawful, but engaged in the conduct anyway. Repeated violations may also be willful to the extent that the original proceeding demonstrates that the contractor or subcontractor was put on notice of its legal obligations, only to later commit the same or a substantially similar violation. If the administrative merits determination, civil judgment, or arbitral award or decision supports a conclusion that a contractor or subcontractor has a written policy or manual that describes a legal requirement, and then knowingly violates that requirement, the violation is also likely to be willful.
For example, if the administrative merits determination, civil judgment, or arbitral award or decision supports a conclusion that a contractor or subcontractor was warned by an official from the Department that the housing it was providing to migrant and seasonal agricultural workers did not comply with required safety and health standards, and that the contractor or subcontractor then failed to make the required repairs or corrections, such findings demonstrate that the contractor or subcontractor engaged in a willful violation of MSPA. Likewise, if the administrative merits determination, civil judgment, or arbitral award or decision indicates that a contractor's or subcontractor's employee handbook states that it provides unpaid leave to employees with serious health conditions as required by the FMLA, but the contractor or subcontractor refuses to grant FMLA leave or erects unnecessary hurdles to employees requesting such leave, that violation would also likely be willful. Certain acts, by their nature, are willful, such as conduct that demonstrates an attempt to evade statutory responsibilities, including the falsification of records, fraud or intentional misrepresentation in the application for a required certificate, payment of wages “off the books,” or “kickbacks” of wages from workers back to the contractor or subcontractor.
The second type of willful violation is where the findings of the enforcement agency, court, arbitrator, or arbitral panel supports a conclusion that a contractor or subcontractor acted with reckless disregard or plain indifference toward the Labor Laws' requirements. These terms refer to circumstances in which the administrative merits determination, civil judgment, or arbitral award or decision supports a conclusion that a contractor or subcontractor failed to make sufficient efforts to learn or understand whether it was complying with the law. Although merely inadvertent or negligent conduct would not meet this standard, blissful ignorance of the law is not a defense to a willful violation. The adequacy of a contractor's or subcontractor's inquiry is
For a table containing selected examples of willful violations, see Appendix B.
The Order provides that the standard for repeated should “incorporate existing statutory standards” to the extent such standards exist.
For a violation to be repeated, the same or substantially similar other violation(s) must be reflected in one or more civil judgments, arbitral awards or decisions, or adjudicated or uncontested administrative merits determinations issued within the last three years. Substantially similar does not mean “exactly the same.”
The civil judgment, arbitral award or decision, or adjudicated or uncontested administrative merits determination for the prior, or predicate, violation(s) must have occurred within the three-year reporting period. This is the case even if a violation may be designated as “repeated” within the meaning of one of the Labor Laws if the prior violation took place more than three years earlier. For example, under current OSHA policy, repeated violations under the OSH Act take into account a five-year period. However, an OSH Act or OSHA-approved State Plan violation designated as a repeated violation in the citation would be repeated for purposes of the Order only if the predicate violation was issued or affirmed within the three-year reporting period.
The prior violation(s) must be the subject of one or more separate investigations or proceedings. Thus, for example, if a single investigation discloses that a contractor or subcontractor violated the FLSA and the OSH Act, or committed multiple violations of any one of the Labor Laws, such violations would not be deemed “repeated.”
The prior violation(s) must be reflected in one or more civil judgments, arbitral awards or decisions, or adjudicated or uncontested administrative merits determinations. To the extent that a prior civil judgment, arbitral award or decision, or administrative merits determination has been reversed or vacated in its entirety and is thus exempt from the reporting requirements, it cannot render a subsequent violation repeated.
As the definition indicates, for an administrative merits determination to serve as a predicate violation that will render a subsequent violation repeated, it must have been adjudicated or be uncontested. An adjudicated administrative merits determination for purposes of the Order is an administrative merits determination that follows a proceeding in which the contractor or subcontractor had an opportunity to present evidence or arguments on its behalf, such as at a hearing or through written submissions, before the appropriate decision-making authority. An uncontested administrative merits determination is any non-reversed, non-vacated administrative merits determination except one in which a timely appeal of the determination has been filed or is pending before a court or other tribunal with jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Only the predicate administrative merits determination need be adjudicated or uncontested when determining whether a violation is repeated. Thus, for example, if a contractor or subcontractor receives an OSH Act citation but timely contests it before the OSHRC, and during the pendency of that proceeding is cited for a substantially similar OSH Act violation, the second citation would not, during the pendency of the OSHRC proceeding, be a repeated violation because the first citation is neither adjudicated nor uncontested. However, if OSHRC affirms the first citation, then the second citation could be a repeated violation because the first violation is now the product of an adjudication, even though the second violation is neither adjudicated nor uncontested. This framework is intended to ensure that repeated violations will only be assessed when the contractor or subcontractor has had the opportunity to present facts or arguments in its defense concerning the predicate violation.
Repeated violations may be considered on a company-wide basis. Thus, a prior violation by any establishment of a multi-establishment company can render subsequent violations repeated, provided the other relevant criteria are satisfied. As discussed below, the relative size of the contractor or subcontractor as compared to the number of violations may be a mitigating factor.
The prior violation(s) must be the same as or substantially similar to the violation designated as repeated. Whether violations fall under the same Labor Law is not determinative of whether the requirements underlying those violations are substantially similar. Rather, this inquiry turns on the nature of the violation and underlying obligation itself.
For example, the FLSA contains provisions requiring that employers pay their covered employees the minimum wage and overtime for any hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Two or
Similarly, for NLRA violations, any two violations of section 8(a)(3), which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees for engaging in or refusing to engage in union activities, would be substantially similar, but would not be substantially similar to violations of section 8(a)(2), which prohibits an employer from dominating or assisting a labor union through financial support or otherwise.
For violations of the OSH Act, violations are repeated if they involve the same or a substantially similar hazard. A repeated violation may be found based on a prior violation of the same standard, a different standard, or the general duty clause, but the hazards themselves must be the same or substantially similar. Thus, for example, if an employer is cited in one instance for failing to provide fall protection on a residential construction site, and a second time for failing to provide fall protection at a commercial construction site, those violations would be repeated because they involve the same or substantially similar hazards, even though the cited standards are different.
Under the FMLA, any two violations would generally be considered substantially similar to each other, with the exception of violations of the notice requirements. Thus, denial of leave, retaliation, discrimination, failure to reinstate an employee to the same or an equivalent position, and failure to maintain group health insurance would all be considered substantially similar, given that each violation involves either denying FMLA leave or penalizing an employee who takes leave. Any two instances of failure to provide notice—such as failure to provide general notice via a poster as well as failure to notify individual employees regarding their eligibility status, rights, and responsibilities—would be substantially similar to each other, but not to other violations of the FMLA.
Under MSPA, multiple violations of the statute's requirements pertaining to wages, supplies, and working arrangements (including, for example, failure to pay wages when due, prohibitions against requiring workers to purchase goods or services solely from particular contractors, employers, or associations, and violating the terms of any working arrangements) would all be substantially similar for purposes of the Order. Likewise, violations of any of MSPA's requirements related to health and safety, including both housing and transportation health and safety, would all be substantially similar to each other. Violations of the statute's disclosure and recordkeeping requirements would also be substantially similar to each other. Finally, multiple violations related to MSPA's registration requirements would be substantially similar.
For purposes of Title VII, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the ADA, the ADEA, Section 6(d) of the FLSA (known as the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. 206(d)), Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1972, and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, violations are substantially similar if they involve the same or an overlapping protected status—
Other violations arising under two or more different statutes may also be substantially similar. For example, several of the Labor Laws have provisions prohibiting retaliation against individuals who exercise protected rights. An employer who commits two or more violations involving retaliation will be found to have engaged in repeated violations. Similarly, failure to pay wages mandated by the FLSA, SCA, DBA, MSPA, or Executive Order 13658 would be substantially similar violations since all of these violations concern the failure to pay wages mandated by law. Likewise, violations of the OSH Act and violations of the health and safety provisions of MSPA could be substantially similar if they involve substantially similar hazards. Two or more failures to post notices required under the Labor Laws would also be deemed substantially similar, as would be two or more failures to keep records.
The Department specifically seeks comments by interested parties regarding its proposed definition of “substantially similar” for determining if a violation is repeated under the Order.
For a table containing selected examples of repeated violations, see Appendix C.
The Order provides that, where no statutory standards exist, the standard for pervasive should take into account “the number of violations of a requirement or the aggregate number of violations of requirements in relation to the size of the entity.”
Violations are “pervasive” if they reflect a basic disregard by the contractor or subcontractor for the Labor Laws as demonstrated by a pattern of serious or willful violations, continuing violations, or numerous violations. Violations must be multiple to be pervasive, although the number of violations necessarily depends on the size of the contractor or subcontractor, because larger employers, by virtue of their size, are more likely to have multiple violations. To be pervasive, the violations need not be of the same or similar requirements of the Labor Laws. Pervasive violations may exist where the contractor or subcontractor commits multiple violations of the same Labor Law, regardless of their similarity, or violations of more than one of the Labor Laws. This category is intended to identify those contractors and subcontractors whose numerous violations of Labor Laws indicate that they may view sanctions for their violations as merely part of the “cost of doing business,” an attitude that is
Pervasive violations differ from repeated violations in a number of ways. First, unlike repeated violations, pervasive violations need not be substantially similar, or even similar at all, as long as each violation involves one of the Labor Laws. Additionally, pervasive violations, unlike repeated violations, may arise in the same proceeding or investigation. For example, a small tools manufacturer with a single location may be cited multiple times for serious violations under the OSH Act—once for improper storage of hazardous materials, once for failure to provide employees with protective equipment, once for inadequate safeguards on heavy machinery, once for lack of fall protection, once for insufficient ventilation, once for unsafe noise exposure, and once for inadequate emergency exits. While these violations are sufficiently different that they would not constitute repeated violations, such a high number of workplace safety violations relative to the size of a small company with only a single location would likely demonstrate a basic disregard by the company for workers' safety and health, particularly if the company lacked a process for identifying and eliminating serious health hazards. As such, these violations would likely be considered pervasive.
In addition, violations across multiple Labor Laws—especially when they are serious, willful, or repeated—are an indication of pervasive violations that warrant careful examination by the contracting officer, in consultation with the LCA. For example, a medium-sized company that provides janitorial services at federal facilities may be found to have violated the SCA for failure to pay workers their required wages, Title VII for discrimination in hiring on the basis of national origin, the National Labor Relations Act for demoting workers who are seeking to organize a union, and the Family and Medical Leave Act for denying workers unpaid leave for serious health conditions. While these violations are substantively different from each other, a medium-sized employer that violates so many Labor Laws is demonstrating a basic disregard for its legal obligations to its workers and is likely committing pervasive violations.
Whereas a repeate d violation may be found anytime a contractor or subcontractor commits two or more substantially similar violations, there is no specific numeric threshold for pervasive violations. Rather, the number of violations necessary will depend on the size of the contractor or subcontractor, as well as the nature of the violations themselves.
A series of repeated violations may, however, become pervasive, particularly if it demonstrates that a contractor or subcontractor, despite knowledge of its violations, fails to make efforts to change its practices and continues to violate the law. For example, if the Department's Wage and Hour Division issued several administrative merits determinations over the course of three years finding that a contractor or subcontractor illegally employed underage workers, and the contractor or subcontractor, despite receiving these notices, failed to make efforts to change its child labor practices and continued to violate the FLSA's child labor provisions, the series of violations would likely be considered pervasive.
For smaller companies, a smaller number of violations may be sufficient for a finding of pervasiveness, while for large companies, pervasive violations will typically require either a greater number of violations or violations affecting a significant number or percentage of a company's workforce. For example, if the Department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs finds that a large contractor that provides food services at federal agencies nationwide used pre-employment screening tests for most jobs at the company's facilities that resulted in Hispanic workers being hired at a significantly lower rate than non-Hispanic workers over a 5-year period, and in addition, the Wage and Hour Division finds that the company failed to comply with the SCA's requirements to pay its workers prevailing wages at many of its locations, such violations would likely be pervasive, notwithstanding the large size of the contractor, because the contractor's numerous serious violations spanned most of its locations and affected many of its workers. Conversely, had the company only engaged in these prohibited practices at, for example, only a few of its locations, such violations might not necessarily be considered pervasive.
Similarly, if a large company that provides laundry services to military bases in several states is cited 50 times for serious OSHA violations affecting most of its locations over the span of one year, and a number of the citations are for failure to abate dangerous conditions that OSHA had cited previously, and as a result the company is placed on OSHA's Severe Violator Enforcement Program, such violations would likely be pervasive because the sheer number of violations over such a short period of time is evidence that the company is ignoring persistent threats to workers' safety, fails to treat safety as a serious problem, and is acting in disregard of its legal obligations. Conversely, if the violations affected only a few of the company's facilities, or if the company had acted quickly to abate any violations, the violations might not necessarily be considered pervasive.
The Department specifically seeks comments by interested parties regarding how best to assess the number of a contractor's or subcontractor's violations in light of its size.
An additional relevant factor in determining whether violations are pervasive is the involvement of higher-level management officials. When Labor Laws are violated with either the explicit or implicit approval of higher-level management, such approval signals that future violations will be tolerated or condoned, and may dissuade workers from reporting violations or raising complaints. Thus, to the extent that higher-level management officials were involved in violations themselves (such as discrimination in hiring by an executive, or a decision by an executive to cut back on required safety procedures that led to violations of the OSH Act) or knew of violations and failed to take appropriate actions (such as ignoring reports or complaints by workers), the violations are more likely to be deemed pervasive. For example, if the vice president of a construction company directs a foreman not to hire Native American workers, and as a result the company is later found to have committed numerous Title VII violations against job applicants, such violations are likely to be pervasive. Likewise, if the chief safety officer at a chemical plant fields complaints from workers about several unsafe working conditions but then fails to take action to remedy the unsafe conditions, such violations are also likely to be pervasive because the dangerous working conditions were willfully sanctioned by a high-level company official and were evident throughout the chemical plant. Such behavior indicates that the company views penalties for such violations as “the cost of doing business,” rather than indicative of significant threats to its workers' health and safety that must be addressed. By the same token, managers are expected to play an active role in ensuring Labor
For a table containing selected examples of pervasive violations, see Appendix D.
When assessing violations of the Labor Laws by a contractor or subcontractor, all the facts and circumstances of the violations, as well as any mitigating factors, should be considered.
The following types of violations raise particular concerns regarding the contractor's or subcontractor's compliance with the Labor Laws:
• Pervasive violations. Pervasive violations, by definition, demonstrate a basic disregard for the Labor Laws. Such disregard of legal obligations creates a heightened danger that the contractor or subcontractor may, in turn, disregard its contractual obligations as well. Additionally, such contractors and subcontractors are more likely to violate the Labor Laws in the future, and those violations—and any enforcement proceedings or litigation that may ensue—may imperil their ability to meet their obligations under a contract. Finally, that a contractor or subcontractor shows such disregard for the Labor Laws is highly probative of whether the contractor or subcontractor lacks integrity and business ethics.
• Violations that meet two or more of the categories discussed above (serious, repeated, and willful). A violation that falls into two or more of the categories is also, as a general matter, more likely to be probative of the contractor's or subcontractor's lack of integrity and business ethics than a violation that falls into only one of those categories.
• Violations that are reflected in final orders. To the extent that the judgment, determination, or order finding a Labor Law violation is final (because appeals and opportunities for further review have been exhausted or were not pursued), the violation should be given greater weight. Likewise, where a violation has not resulted in a final judgment, determination, or order, it should be given lesser weight.
• Violations of particular gravity. In the Department's view, certain Labor Laws violations that are serious under the Order should be given greater weight, including violations related to the death of an employee; violations involving a termination of employment for exercising a right protected under the Labor Laws; violations that detrimentally impact the working conditions of all or nearly all of the workforce at a worksite; and violations where the amount of back wages, penalties, and other damages awarded is greater than $100,000.
Various factors may mitigate the existence of a Labor Law violation. The Department respects the fact that most employers endeavor to comply with the Labor Laws. The Department values highly contractors' good-faith efforts to comply, and it encourages them to report these efforts, including workplace policies that foster compliance.
In most cases, the most important mitigating factors will be the extent to which the contractor or subcontractor has remediated the violation and taken steps to prevent its recurrence. Other mitigating factors include where the contractor or subcontractor has only had a single violation; where the number of violations is low relative to the size of the contractor or subcontractor; where the contractor or subcontractor has implemented a safety and health management program, a collectively-bargained grievance procedure, or other compliance program; where there was a recent legal or regulatory change; where the findings of the enforcement agency, court, arbitrator, or arbitral panel support a conclusion that contractor or subcontractor acted in good faith and had reasonable grounds for believing that it was not violating the law; and where the contractor or subcontractor has maintained a long period of compliance following any violations. Contractors and subcontractors should provide any information that may mitigate a Labor Law violation.
As noted above, the extent to which a contractor or subcontractor has remediated a Labor Law violation will typically be the most important factor that can mitigate the existence of a violation. Remediation is an indication that a contractor or subcontractor has assumed responsibility for a violation and has taken steps to bring itself into compliance with the law going forward. Conversely, failure to remediate a violation may demonstrate disregard for legal obligations and workers, which in turn would have bearing on whether the contractor or subcontractor lacks integrity or business ethics. In most cases, for remediation to be considered mitigating, it should involve two components. First, the remediation should correct the violation itself, including by making any affected workers whole. For example, this could involve abating a dangerous hazard, paying workers their back wages owed, or reinstating a wrongfully discharged employee. Second, the remediation should demonstrate efforts by the contractor or subcontractor to prevent similar violations in the future. For example, if a contractor or subcontractor improperly misclassified workers as exempt from the FLSA and pays any back wages due to the workers without reviewing its classifications of the workers going forward, it will likely commit similar violations in the future. Particular consideration will be given where the contractor or subcontractor has implemented remediation on an enterprise-wide level or has entered into an enhanced settlement agreement with the relevant enforcement agency or agencies that goes beyond what is minimally required under the law to address appropriate remedial or compliance measures.
Similarly, when a contractor or subcontractor enters into a labor compliance agreement (defined above) with the enforcement agency, that agreement is an important mitigating factor. Entering into a labor compliance agreement indicates that the contractor or subcontractor recognizes the importance that the Federal Government places on compliance with the Labor Laws.
The Order provides that, in most cases, a single violation of a Labor Law may not necessarily give rise to a determination of lack of responsibility, depending on the nature of the violation.
Larger employers, by virtue of their size, are more likely to have multiple violations than smaller ones. When assessing contractors or subcontractors with multiple violations, the size of the contractor or subcontractor will be considered.
Implementation of a safety and health management program such as OSHA's 1989 Safety and Health Program Management guidelines or any updates
To the extent that the Labor Laws violations can be traced to a recent legal or regulatory change, that may be a mitigating factor. The change must be recent, and the violations must not have been violations but for the change.
It may be a mitigating factor if the contractor or subcontractor shows that it made efforts to ascertain its legal obligations and to follow the law, and that its actions under the circumstances were objectively reasonable. For example, if a contractor or subcontractor acts in reasonable reliance on advice from a responsible official from the relevant enforcement agency, or an administrative or authoritative judicial ruling, such reliance will typically demonstrate good faith and reasonable grounds. This factor may also apply where the contractor's or subcontractor's legal obligations are unclear, such as when a new statute, rule, or standard is first implemented.
If, following one or more violations within the three-year reporting period, the contractor or subcontractor maintains a steady period of compliance with the Labor Laws, such compliance may mitigate the existence of prior violations (
Transparency in the relationships between employers and their workers is critical to workers' understanding of their legal rights and to the resolution of workplace disputes. When workers lack information about how their pay is calculated and their status as employees or independent contractors, workers are less aware of their rights and employers are less likely to comply with labor laws. Providing workers with information about how their pay is calculated each pay period will enable workers to raise any concerns about pay more quickly, and will encourage proactive efforts by employers to resolve such concerns. Similarly, providing workers who are classified as independent contractors with notice of their status will enable them to better understand their legal rights, evaluate their status as independent contractors, and raise any concerns during the course of the working relationship as opposed to after it ends (which will increase the likelihood that the employer and the worker will be able to resolve any concerns more quickly and effectively). Thus, the Order's paycheck transparency provisions will increase transparency in compensation information and improve working relationships.
The Order requires contracting agencies to ensure that, for covered procurement contracts, provisions in solicitations and clauses in contracts require contractors to provide all workers under the contract for whom they must maintain wage records under the FLSA, the DBA, the SCA, or equivalent State laws
The Order requires that the wage statement be provided to “all individuals performing work” for whom the contractor or subcontractor is required to maintain wage records under the FLSA, the DBA, the SCA, or equivalent State laws. This means that a wage statement must be provided to every worker subject to the FLSA, the DBA, the SCA, or equivalent State laws regardless of the contractor's or subcontractor's classification of the worker as an employee or independent contractor.
The Order states that the wage statement provided to workers each pay period must be a “document.” If the contractor or subcontractor regularly provides documents to its workers by electronic means, the wage statement may be provided electronically if the worker can access it through a computer, device, system, or network provided or made available by the contractor or subcontractor.
The Order further provides that the wage statement must be issued every pay period and contain the total number of hours worked in the pay period and the number of those hours that were overtime hours. The FAR Council's proposed regulations would require, if the wage statement is not provided weekly and is instead provided bi-weekly or semi-monthly (because the pay period is bi-weekly or semi-monthly), that the hours worked and overtime hours contained in the wage statement be broken down to correspond to the period (which will almost always be weekly) for which overtime is calculated and paid. If the hours worked and overtime hours are aggregated in the wage statement for the entire pay period as opposed to being broken down by week, the worker may not be able to understand and evaluate how the overtime hours were calculated. For example, if the pay period is bi-weekly and the worker is entitled to overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in a week, then the wage statement must provide the hours worked and any overtime hours for the first week and the hours worked and any overtime hours for the second week.
The Order states that the wage statement must also contain the worker's pay—a reference to the gross pay due the worker for the pay period—as well as all additions to and deductions from the gross pay. Additions to pay may include bonuses, awards, and shift differentials. Deductions from pay include deductions required by law (such as withholding for taxes), voluntary
According to the Order, the wage statement provided to workers who have no entitlement to overtime compensation under the FLSA “need not include a record of hours worked if the contractor informs the individuals of their exempt status.”
The wage statement requirements “shall be deemed to be fulfilled” where a contractor or subcontractor “is complying with State or local requirements that the Secretary of Labor has determined are substantially similar to those required” by the Order.
As described above, substantially similar does not mean “exactly the same.”
One option is to find a State or local requirement to be substantially similar where it requires wage statements to include the essential elements of overtime hours or overtime earnings, total hours, gross pay, and any additions or deductions. When overtime hours or earnings are disclosed in a wage statement, workers can identify from the face of the document whether they have been paid for overtime hours. The benefit of this option is that workers would be more likely to become aware of a problem with their paycheck at an earlier date, increasing the likelihood that the problem will be resolved efficiently. Applying this method, the current list of Substantially Similar Wage Payment States would be Alaska, California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, New York, and Oregon.
A second option would allow wage statements to omit overtime hours or earnings, so long as they instead include an element not listed in the Order—the “rate of pay”—in addition to the essential elements of total hours, gross pay, and any additions or deductions. The benefit of this option is that it would allow more flexibility while still requiring wage statements to provide enough information for a worker to calculate whether he or she has been paid in full. By working backwards from the information provided—dividing the gross earnings by the number of hours worked and comparing the result to the rate of pay—the worker should be able to determine whether the paycheck includes payment for overtime hours. The drawback of this option is that a failure to pay overtime would not be immediately identifiable from the face of the document as it would be in the first option. Instead, workers would need to complete a calculation in order to catch an error. Thus, if the Department were to choose this second option, workers in some of the Substantially Similar Wage Payment States would be at greater risk of missing a problem with a paycheck than if the Department were to choose the first option. Applying this second method, the current list of Substantially Similar Wage Payment States would be Alaska, California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.
After this proposed guidance is finalized, the Department will maintain on its Web site a list of the Substantially Similar Wage Payment States. The Secretary recognizes that States may change their wage statement laws, such that some States whose wage statement laws are initially designated as substantially similar may later weaken them, and other States whose laws are not initially designated as substantially similar may later strengthen them. When the Secretary determines that a State must be added to or removed from the list of Substantially Similar Wage Payment States, notice of such changes will be published on the Web site.
The Order requires contractors and subcontractors, for workers under covered contracts for whom they are required to maintain wage records under the FLSA, the DBA, the SCA, or equivalent State laws, to provide those workers whom they treat as independent contractors with “a document informing the individual of this [independent contractor] status.”
The notice informing the worker of status as an independent contractor must be provided to each individual worker treated as an independent contractor before the worker performs any work under the contract. The notice must be a “document” (oral notice of independent contractor status is not sufficient).
As of the effective date of the Order's independent contractor notice requirement, contractors and subcontractors must provide the required notice to each independent contractor then engaged to perform work under a covered contract. Thereafter, contractors and subcontractors must provide the notice to an independent contractor each time that he or she is engaged to perform work under a covered contract (and certainly before he or she performs any work under the contract). The notice provided is specific to a particular covered contract regardless of whether the worker performs the same type of work on another covered contract. If a worker who has performed work under a contract and who received notice that his or her status was as an independent contractor is engaged to perform work as an independent contractor under a different covered contract, then the contractor or subcontractor shall provide the worker with a new notice informing the worker of his or her status as an independent contractor for work performed under the different contract.
The provision of the notice to a worker informing the worker that he or she is an independent contractor does not mean that the worker is correctly classified as an independent contractor under applicable laws. The Department will not consider the notice when determining whether a worker is an independent contractor or employee. The determination of whether a worker is an independent contractor under a particular law remains governed by that law's definition of “employee” and its standards for determining for its purposes which workers are independent contractors and not employees.
As discussed above, the Department, in its discretion, solicits comments on this proposed initial guidance document in the manner and before the date specified herein. After the comment period has ended, the Department will publish final guidance in the
This solicitation of public feedback is intended to improve the internal management of the Executive Branch and is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the United States, its agencies or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
This proposed guidance is the first step in the phased implementation of the Order.
The Order requires the FAR Council to propose to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation to incorporate the Order's requirements into the process by which contracting officers make pre-award responsibility determinations, among other necessary and appropriate proposed changes.
As indicated in this proposed guidance, the Department will publish in the
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration |