| Page Range | 30605-30917 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 80 FR 30662 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 80 FR 30630 - Television Broadcasting Services; Providence, Rhode Island | |
| 80 FR 30739 - Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness | |
| 80 FR 30655 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 30631 - Acquisition Regulation; OMB Approvals Under the Paperwork Reduction Act | |
| 80 FR 30631 - Application of Labor Laws to Government Acquisitions | |
| 80 FR 30630 - Piping Systems and Appurtenances | |
| 80 FR 30671 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 80 FR 30646 - Request for Information Regarding the Requirements for the Health Plan Identifier | |
| 80 FR 30684 - Health Insurance Marketplace, Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Programs; Meeting of the Advisory Panel on Outreach and Education (APOE), June 25, 2015 | |
| 80 FR 30662 - Record of Decision for the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site Training and Operations Final Environmental Impact Statement | |
| 80 FR 30738 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; NSF's Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES) Portfolio of Programs Survey; Proposed Information Collection Request | |
| 80 FR 30738 - Proposal Review; Notice of Meetings | |
| 80 FR 30721 - Proposed Information Collection; United States Park Police Application Forms | |
| 80 FR 30676 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
| 80 FR 30720 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Programmatic Clearance for NPS-Sponsored Surveys | |
| 80 FR 30659 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 54-Clinton County, New York; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Swarovski Lighting, Ltd. (Lighting Fixtures and Parts); Plattsburgh, New York | |
| 80 FR 30660 - Foreign-Trade Zone 151-Findlay, Ohio; Application for Reorganization: (Expansion of Service Area) Under Alternative Site Framework | |
| 80 FR 30660 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 41-Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Authorization of Production Activity: CNH Industrial America, LLC; Subzone 41I (4-Wheel Drive Axle Subassemblies), Racine, Wisconsin | |
| 80 FR 30677 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Fuel Quality Regulations for Diesel Fuel Sold in 2001 and Later Years; for Tax-Exempt (Dyed) Highway Diesel Fuel; & Non-Road Locomotive & Marine Diesel Fuel (Renewal) | |
| 80 FR 30691 - Certificates of Alternative Compliance | |
| 80 FR 30762 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to Executive Order 13224 | |
| 80 FR 30726 - United States v. Verso Paper Corp. and NewPage Holdings Inc.; Public Comments and Response on Proposed Final Judgment | |
| 80 FR 30651 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program-Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (D-SNAP) | |
| 80 FR 30697 - " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants " (NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 2) | |
| 80 FR 30670 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Assessing the Role of Noncognitive and School Environmental Factors in Students' Transitions to High School in New Mexico | |
| 80 FR 30669 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Application for the U.S. Presidential Scholars Program | |
| 80 FR 30696 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment-State Preparedness Report Unified Reporting Tool | |
| 80 FR 30759 - Recognition Awards for U.S.-Flag Vessel Usage | |
| 80 FR 30614 - Amendment to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Policy on Exports to the Republic of Fiji | |
| 80 FR 30681 - Notice of Public Meeting Concerning the General Services Administration's Request for Information on Business Due Diligence | |
| 80 FR 30652 - Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, Wisconsin, Townsend Project | |
| 80 FR 30698 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Fee Waiver, Form I-912; Request for Fee Exemption; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection; Revision | |
| 80 FR 30653 - Notice of Intent To Request Revision and Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
| 80 FR 30762 - New Hampshire Central Railroad, Inc.-Discontinuance of Service Exemption-Between Littleton and Bethlehem, NH | |
| 80 FR 30654 - Notice of Intent To Extend a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
| 80 FR 30667 - Denali Commission Fiscal Year 2015 Draft Work Plan | |
| 80 FR 30685 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 30763 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 30666 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License; Point Semantics Corporation | |
| 80 FR 30666 - Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS); Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 80 FR 30680 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB | |
| 80 FR 30686 - Joint Meeting of the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 30724 - Information Collection Activities: Oil-Spill Response Requirements for Facilities Located Seaward of the Coast Line; Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 30648 - Transporter Proof of Delivery | |
| 80 FR 30664 - Comprehensive Autism Care Demonstration Amendment | |
| 80 FR 30718 - Notice of Availability of the HiLine District Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement, HiLine District, Montana | |
| 80 FR 30709 - Notice of Availability of the Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Buffalo Resource Management Plan Revision, Buffalo Field Office, Wyoming | |
| 80 FR 30705 - Notice of Availability of the Miles City Field Office Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Miles City Field Office, Montana | |
| 80 FR 30682 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 80 FR 30764 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 30723 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
| 80 FR 30683 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 30615 - Importation of Arms, Ammunition and Defense Articles-Removal of Certain Defense Articles Currently on the U.S. Munitions Import List That No Longer Warrant Import Control Under the Arms Export Control Act (2011R-25P) | |
| 80 FR 30617 - Authority of the Assistant Attorneys General To Compromise or Close Civil Claims | |
| 80 FR 30633 - Separation Distances of Ammonium Nitrate and Blasting Agents From Explosives or Blasting Agents | |
| 80 FR 30644 - Proposal To Mitigate Exposure to Bees From Acutely Toxic Pesticide Products; Notice of Availability | |
| 80 FR 30737 - National Industrial Security Program Policy Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 80 FR 30757 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Certification of Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft | |
| 80 FR 30756 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Procedures for Non-Federal Navigation Facilities | |
| 80 FR 30753 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Certification: Airmen Other Than Flight Crewmembers, Subpart C, Aircraft Dispatchers and App. A Aircraft Dispatcher Courses | |
| 80 FR 30756 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: ACSEP Evaluation Customer Feedback Report | |
| 80 FR 30661 - North American Free Trade Agreement, Article 1904; NAFTA Panel Reviews; Response to Request for Panel Review | |
| 80 FR 30758 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Certification of Repair Stations | |
| 80 FR 30613 - Establishment of Class E Airspace; Clark, SD | |
| 80 FR 30654 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Nevada Advisory Committee To Discuss and Approve Its Report on Police Militarization | |
| 80 FR 30689 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Guidance for Industry on Postmarketing Adverse Event Reporting for Medical Products and Dietary Supplements During an Influenza Pandemic | |
| 80 FR 30688 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Prescription Drug Product Labeling; Medication Guide Requirements | |
| 80 FR 30752 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Recording of Aircraft Conveyances and Security Documents | |
| 80 FR 30753 - Meeting: RTCA Program Management Committee (PMC) | |
| 80 FR 30754 - Fourth Meeting: Special Committee 230 (SC 230) | |
| 80 FR 30757 - Twenty-Fourth Meeting: Subcommittee 217 (SC 217) | |
| 80 FR 30740 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes and the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes To Increase a Fee for the Late Cancellation of a Scheduled Hearing, Lengthen the Notice Period for Cancelling a Scheduled Hearing, and Increase the Amount of Honoraria Paid to Arbitrators Affected by a Late Cancellation of a Scheduled Hearing | |
| 80 FR 30746 - KCAP Financial, Inc.; Notice of Application | |
| 80 FR 30747 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Adopting New NYSE Rule 124 To Conduct a Midday Auction and Amending NYSE Rule 104 To Codify the Obligation of Designated Market Makers To Facilitate the Midday Auction | |
| 80 FR 30761 - Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision that Nonconforming Model Year 1991 BMW M3 Convertible Passenger Cars Are Eligible for Importation | |
| 80 FR 30632 - Proposed Revocation of Class D Airspace; Springfield, OH | |
| 80 FR 30612 - Revocation of Class E Airspace; Forrest City, AR | |
| 80 FR 30670 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and approval; Comment Request; Pell Grant Reporting Under the Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) System | |
| 80 FR 30755 - Fourteenth Meeting: Subcommittee 227 (SC 227) | |
| 80 FR 30757 - Fifth Meeting: Special Committee 231 (SC 231) | |
| 80 FR 30661 - Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings | |
| 80 FR 30661 - Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting | |
| 80 FR 30686 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Requirements on Content and Format of Labeling for Human Prescription Drug and Biological Products | |
| 80 FR 30754 - Sixty-Third Meeting: Subcommittee 186 (SC 186) | |
| 80 FR 30736 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Disclosures by Insurers to General Account Policyholders | |
| 80 FR 30703 - Notice of Availability of the Rocky Mountain Region Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments and Final Environmental Impact Statements for the Wyoming, Northwest Colorado, Lewistown, and North Dakota Sub-Regions. | |
| 80 FR 30711 - Notice of Availability of the Great Basin Region Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments and Final Environmental Impact Statements for the Sub-Regions of Idaho and Southwestern Montana; Nevada and Northeastern California; Oregon; and Utah | |
| 80 FR 30679 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 80 FR 30678 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Air Pollution Regulations for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Activities (Renewal) | |
| 80 FR 30678 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Aircraft Engines-Supplemental Information Related to Exhaust Emissions (Renewal) | |
| 80 FR 30716 - Notice of Availability of the Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Bighorn Basin Resource Management Plan Revision, Cody and Worland Field Offices, Wyoming | |
| 80 FR 30625 - Mesotrione; Pesticide Tolerances | |
| 80 FR 30714 - Notice of Availability of the Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument Resource Management Plan Revision, Billings Field Office, Montana | |
| 80 FR 30619 - Metconazole; Pesticide Tolerances | |
| 80 FR 30707 - Notice of Availability of the South Dakota Field Office Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement, South Dakota Field Office, Montana | |
| 80 FR 30663 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 30605 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 30699 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless | |
| 80 FR 30689 - Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs; Request for Information Regarding Specific Issues Related to the Use of the Hair Specimen for Drug Testing | |
| 80 FR 30637 - Safety Zone, Fall River Grand Prix, Mt. Hope Bay and Taunton River, Fall River, MA | |
| 80 FR 30640 - Banda de Lupinus albus doce BLAD; Proposed Pesticide Tolerance | |
| 80 FR 30614 - Gulf of the Farallones and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries Regulations on Introduced Species; Notification of Effective Date | |
| 80 FR 30767 - Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset to Affected Domestic Producers | |
| 80 FR 30608 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes |
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
National Agricultural Statistics Service
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Navy Department
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Antitrust Division
Information Security Oversight Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Foreign Assets Control Office
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.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 707 airplanes, and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of cracked midspar fittings on the inboard and outboard nacelle struts. This AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the inboard and outboard midspar fittings of the nacelle struts and of the torque bulkhead, midspar chords, drag fitting, and front spar support, and doing applicable related investigative and corrective actions; replacing the midspar fittings; and doing other specified actions. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the midspar fittings of the inboard and outboard nacelle struts, which could result in the loss of the structural integrity of the midspar fitting. This condition could cause an unsafe separation of the engine and consequent wing fire.
This AD is effective July 6, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 6, 2015.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Chandra Ramdoss, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5239; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 707 airplanes, and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 67379, November 13, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.
The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) at Robins Air Force Base, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory Flight Facility (LLFF), requested that the compliance time proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 67379, November 13, 2014) be extended. AFLCMC asked that the grace period be extended from 18 months after the effective date of the AD to 24 months after the effective date of the AD. This commenter explained that its airplanes are scheduled for heavy maintenance visits every 24 months, and the 18-month grace period for the initial actions proposed in the NPRM would negatively impact airplane availability.
In addition, the AFLCMC stated that there is a low quantity of kits available to replace the inboard and outboard midspar fittings with new parts, as proposed in paragraphs (g) and (h) of the NPRM (79 FR 67379, November 13, 2014). This commenter also noted that the kits are expensive and have long lead times, which could impact operators' schedules. We infer that the commenter is requesting that the compliance time proposed in the NPRM be lengthened to accommodate parts availability.
LLFF's interpretation of the compliance time was that the compliance time was related to the date of the service bulletin. LLFF commented that operators would have a difficult time complying with the requirements proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 67379, November 13, 2014).
We do not agree with the commenters' requests to extend the compliance time.
Boeing requested that the unsafe condition statement in the NPRM (79 FR 67379, November 13, 2014) be revised. The NPRM stated “This condition could cause an unsafe separation of the engine and consequent wing fire.” Boeing commented that the word “consequent” implied that the end result would always be a wing fire. Boeing suggested that the wording be changed to “This condition could cause an unsafe separation of the engine and potential fire.”
We do not agree to revise the unsafe condition statement in this final rule. Where the unsafe condition states “could result” it is recognized that the loss of structural integrity, unsafe separation of the engine, and wing fire are possible outcomes in a chain of events. Furthermore, we frequently use “consequent” in unsafe condition statements when we state the end-level effect of the unsafe condition on an airplane. We have not changed this AD regarding this issue.
Boeing requested that the term limit of validity (LOV) in the first paragraph of the Discussion section of the preamble of the NPRM (79 FR 67379, November 13, 2014) be removed because it is misleading. Boeing commented that the term LOV has implications associated with it which may not be intended. Boeing suggested that the term “service objective” be used instead of LOV.
We agree that the unsafe condition addressed by this final rule is not related to an airplane reaching its LOV. The actions in this final rule are necessary to prevent loss of the structural integrity of the midspar fitting as the result of stress corrosion and fatigue at the lug and fatigue at the tangs. These actions do not directly support an airplane reaching its LOV. The Discussion section from the preamble of an NPRM is not repeated in a final rule so no change is necessary. We have revised paragraph (e) of this AD by removing the statement “This AD was prompted by certain mandated programs intended to support the airplane reaching its limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the established structural maintenance program.” We replaced that statement with “This AD was prompted by reports of cracked midspar fittings on the inboard and outboard nacelle struts.”
Rafael Veas stated that two midspar fittings had already been replaced on an airplane at his facility. This commenter asked if all four midspar fittings have to be replaced, or only the two remaining midspar fittings that have not yet been replaced.
We agree to clarify the replacement requirements of this final rule. Paragraph (f) of this AD states “Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.” The two midspar fittings that have already been replaced do not have to be replaced again if they have been replaced in accordance with the procedures mandated by this AD. For these two midspar fittings the repetitive inspection and replacement intervals should be calculated from the most recent midspar fitting replacement. We have not changed this final rule regarding this issue.
The AFLCMC mentioned that the cost and labor estimates presented in the preamble of the NPRM (79 FR 67379, November 13, 2014) are significantly lower than the actual costs. The commenter stated that accomplishment of the actions proposed in the NPRM would require a set of ready-for-installation engine pylons, removal of all four engines, inspections, and reassembly, and the estimated cost would be over $1,000,000 per airplane. We infer that the commenter requested that the estimated costs be revised.
After considering the data presented by the commenter, we agree that the cost and labor estimates referenced in the NPRM (79 FR 67379, November 13, 2014) are significantly lower than the actual costs. The cost estimate in the NPRM was for replacement of the midspar fitting for one engine, and the proposed requirement in the NPRM was for replacement of the midspar fitting for all four engines. The estimated cost information in this final rule has been revised to indicate this higher amount. We disagree, however, with the commenter's estimate that the cost will be over $1,000,000 per airplane. Our cost estimate includes the work hours and parts cost for the required midspar fitting replacements, but does not include costs associated with maintenance scheduling or a set of ready-for-installation engine pylons.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 67379, November 13, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 67379, November 13, 2014).
We reviewed Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3183, Revision 6, dated February 7, 2014. The service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections for cracking of the inboard and outboard midspar fittings of the nacelle struts and of the torque bulkhead, midspar chords, drag fitting, and front spar support, and related investigative and corrective actions; replacing the midspar fittings; and doing other specified actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 12 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any additional inspections that would be required based on the results of the inspections. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these inspections:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition corrective actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective July 6, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 707-100 long body, -200, -100B long body, and -100B short body series airplanes; Model 707-300, -300B, -300C, and -400 series airplanes; and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes; certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54, Nacelles/Pylons.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracked midspar fittings on the inboard and outboard nacelle struts. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the midspar fittings of the inboard and outboard nacelle struts, which could result in the loss of the structural integrity of the midspar fitting. This condition could cause an unsafe separation of the engine and consequent wing fire.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the applicable time specified in table 2 or table 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3183, Revision 6, dated February 7, 2014, except as required by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD: Do the inspections required by paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, in accordance with part 2 or part 3, as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3183, Revision 6, dated February 7, 2014, except as required by
(1) A detailed inspection and a high frequency eddy current inspection (HFEC) for cracks in the inboard and outboard midspar fittings of the nacelle struts.
(2) Open hole HFEC inspections for cracks in the torque bulkhead, midspar chords, drag fitting, and front spar support.
(3) A surface HFEC inspection of the front spar support for cracks.
At the applicable time specified in table 4 or 5 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3183, Revision 6, dated February 7, 2014: Do the inspections required by paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD, in accordance with part 4 or part 5, as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3183, Revision 6, dated February 7, 2014, except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative, corrective, and other specified actions (including installing new bushings and oversize fasteners) before further flight. Repeat the inspections required by paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in table 4 or 5 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3183, Revision 6, dated February 7, 2014. The threshold for the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD is 1,500 flight cycles or 48 months, whichever occurs first, since the most recent midspar fitting replacement.
(1) A detailed inspection and a surface HFEC inspection for cracks in the inboard and outboard midspar fittings of the nacelle struts.
(2) An open hole HFEC inspection for cracks in the drag fitting and front spar support.
(3) A surface HFEC inspection for cracks in the front spar support.
(1) Where Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3183, Revision 6, dated February 7, 2014, specifies a compliance time “after the Revision 6 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3183, Revision 6, dated February 7, 2014, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Do corrective actions before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not allowed.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (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 (l) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
For more information about this AD, contact Chandra Ramdoss, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5239; fax: 562-627-5210; 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) Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3183, Revision 6, dated February 7, 2014.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
(4) You may view this referenced 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.
(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), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-09-05, for certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. AD 2014-09-05 required repetitive inspections of certain sidestay upper cardan pins of the main landing gear (MLG) and associated nuts and retainer assemblies, and pin replacement if necessary. This AD was prompted by a determination that a previously optional measurement is necessary to address the identified unsafe condition. This new AD continues to require a detailed inspection for visible chrome of each affected MLG sidestay upper cardan pin, associated nuts, and retainer assembly, and pin replacement if needed, and adds new requirements for measuring cardan pin clearance dimensions (gap check), doing corrective actions, and reporting all findings. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct migration of the sidestay upper cardan pin, which could result in disconnection of the sidestay upper arm from the airplane structure, and could result in a landing
This AD becomes effective July 6, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 14, 2014 (79 FR 23909, April 29, 2014).
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS—Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2014-09-05, Amendment 39-17840 (79 FR 23909, April 29, 2014). AD 2014-09-05 applied to certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0066, corrected March 20, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
An A330 aeroplane equipped with Basic (main landing gear) MLG was rolling out after landing when it experienced a nose wheel steering fault (unrelated to the safety subject addressed by this [EASA] AD), which resulted in the crew stopping the aeroplane on the taxiway after vacating the runway.
The subsequent investigation revealed that the right-hand MLG sidestay upper cardan pin had migrated out of position. The sidestay upper cardan nut and retainer were found in the landing gear bay detached from the upper cardan pin. The nut and the retainer were still bolted together.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to a complete migration of the sidestay upper cardan pin and a disconnection of the sidestay upper arm from the aeroplane structure, possibly resulting in MLG collapse with consequent damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.
To address this potential condition, Airbus published Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A32L003-14, providing inspection instructions.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires accomplishment of repetitive [detailed inspections for visible chrome] of the MLG upper cardan pin, nut and retainer [and pin replacement if necessary]. This [EASA] AD also requires accomplishment of a gap check between wing rear spar fitting lugs and the bush flanges [and corrective actions if necessary. Corrective actions include repair or replacement of the cardan pin assembly].
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 50863, August 26, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.
U.S. Airways requested that we revise the affected airplanes of paragraph (h) of the NPRM (79 FR 50863, August 26, 2014) to match those of paragraph (g) of the NPRM. U.S. Airways stated that paragraph (g) of the NPRM limits the repetitive inspections to MLG that have exceeded 8 years since first overhaul but not yet had a second overhaul; whereas paragraph (h) of the NPRM provides a new terminating action to the repetitive inspections, but does not limit the applicability to MLG that have exceeded 8 years since first overhaul but not yet had a second overhaul.
We agree to revise the affected airplanes of paragraph (h) of this AD because the terminating action provisions of paragraph (h) of the NPRM (79 FR 50863, August 26, 2014) was intended to apply to the same subset of affected airplanes identified in paragraph (g)(1) of the NPRM. We have changed the language in paragraph (h) of this AD by limiting the affected airplanes to those identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
U.S. Airways requested that we revise the compliance time for sending the results of the inspection and gap check to Airbus from “before further flight” to “within 30 days.” U.S. Airways stated that paragraph (h)(2)(i) of the NPRM (79 FR 50863, August 26, 2014) states to send inspection findings to Airbus “before further flight,” if the gap check result measures between 0.6 mm and 1.5 mm, and paragraph (h)(2)(ii) states to repair within 30 days. U.S. Airways stated that mechanics who inspect the cardan pin typically do not send data directly to Airbus and that since the repair is not required for 30 days after the inspection, communicating the inspection findings should not restrict aircraft flight.
We agree to revise the compliance time because the proposed compliance time for sending the results of the inspection and gap check does not affect the compliance time for accomplishment of the repair. We have changed the compliance time in paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this AD from before further flight, to 30 days. This difference has been coordinated with EASA.
U.S. Airways requested that we allow the replacement of the cardan pin assembly to be considered as a terminating action. Paragraph (h)(1) of the NPRM (79 FR 50863, August 26, 2014) would mandate the replacement of the cardan pin if the gap is found to be greater than 1.5mm. However paragraph (h)(2) of the NPRM would require an approved repair for smaller gaps. US Airways suggested that the AD also allow the replacement of the cardan pin assembly before further flight as an alternative to the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (h)(2)(ii) of the NPRM.
We agree with the request to allow replacement of the cardan pin assembly as an alternative to small repairs because replacing the cardan pin assembly is terminating action regardless of the size of the gap. We have revised paragraph (h) of this AD to
The manufacturer has issued Airbus AOT A32L003-14, dated March 10, 2014. The service information describes procedures for inspecting sidestay upper cardan pins of the MLG and associated nuts and retainer assemblies. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 50863, August 26, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 50863, August 26, 2014).
We estimate that this AD affects 83 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions required by AD 2014-09-05, Amendment 39-17840 (79 FR 23909, April 29, 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 $0 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 2014-09-05 is $85 per product.
We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $7,055, or $85 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 4 work-hours and require parts costing $7,530, for a cost of $7,870 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
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.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
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 July 6, 2015.
This AD replaces AD 2014-09-05, Amendment 39-17840 (79 FR 23909, April 29, 2014).
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers (MSNs), equipped with basic (201252 series) main landing gear (MLG), or growth (201490 series) MLG.
(2) Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes, all MSNs, equipped with basic (201252 series) MLG or growth (201490 series) MLG.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by a report of a sidestay upper cardan pin of the MLG migrating out of position. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct migration of the sidestay upper cardan pin, which could result in disconnection of the sidestay upper arm from the airplane structure, and could result in a landing gear collapse and consequent damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014-09-05, Amendment 39-17840 (79 FR 23909, April 29, 2014), with no changes.
(1) For airplanes identified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD on which the affected MLG has exceeded 8 years since first overhaul, as of May 14, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-09-05, Amendment 39-17840 (79 FR 23909, April 29, 2014), except those MLG that have had a second overhaul: Within 30 days after May 14, 2014, accomplish a detailed inspection for visible chrome of each affected MLG sidestay upper cardan pin, and associated nut and retainer assembly, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A32L003-14, dated March 10, 2014, including Appendices 1, 2, and 3 (the issue date is not specified on the appendices).
(i) Airplanes equipped with any MLG sidestay upper cardan pin subassembly part number (P/N) 201267202 (on 201252 series MLG).
(ii) Airplanes equipped with any MLG sidestay upper cardan pin subassembly P/N 201483202 (on 201490 series MLG).
(2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, no pin chrome is visible inboard of the wing rear spar fitting lug, repeat the detailed inspection for visible chrome specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10 days.
(3) If, during any inspection required by paragraphs (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, a pin chrome is visible inboard of the wing rear spar fitting lug, before further flight, replace the affected cardan pin assembly, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus AOT A32L003-14, dated March 10, 2014, including Appendices 1, 2, and 3 (the issue date is not specified on the appendices). Replacement of the affected cardan pin assembly terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: MLG sidestay upper cardan pin subassembly P/N 201267202 (found in Airbus Illustrated Parts Catalogue (IPC) as item 32-11-18-01) includes the cardan pin P/N 201267600. MLG sidestay upper cardan pin subassembly P/N 201483202 (found in Airbus IPC as item 32-11-18-01) includes the cardan pin P/N 201483600.
For airplanes identified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD on which the affected MLG has exceeded 8 years since first overhaul, as of May 14, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-09-05, Amendment 39-17840 (79 FR 23909, April 29, 2014), except those MLG that have had a second overhaul: Within 4 months after the effective date of this AD: Measure the cardan pin clearance dimensions (gap check) and do the applicable corrective action specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD. Measuring the gap check and doing the applicable corrective action specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, as applicable, terminates the inspections required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD for that sidestay upper cardan pin, nut, and retainer only. The measurement must be done in accordance with Airbus AOT A32L003-14, dated March 10, 2014, including Appendices 1, 2, and 3 (the issue date is not specified on the appendices).
(1) If the total clearance dimension (gap check result) is equal to or greater than 1.5 mm, before further flight, replace the cardan pin assembly, in accordance with Airbus AOT A32L003-14, dated March 10, 2014, including Appendices 1, 2, and 3 (the issue date is not specified on the appendices).
(2) If the total clearance dimension (gap check) is less than 1.5 mm but greater than 0.6 mm, do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) or (h)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i)(A) and (h)(2)(i)(B) of this AD.
(A) Within 30 days after accomplishing the gap check, send the information (Appendix 2 proforma, photographs, and the movement traceability sheet) specified in paragraph 4.2.3, “Findings,” of Airbus AOT A32L003-14, dated March 10, 2014, including Appendices 1, 2, and 3 (the issue date is not specified on the appendices), to Airbus at the address specified in Appendix 2 (the issue date is not specified on this appendix) of Airbus AOT A32L003-14, dated March 10, 2014.
(B) Within 30 days after accomplishing the gap check, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
(ii) Within 30 days after accomplishing the gap check, replace the cardan pin assembly, in accordance with Airbus AOT A32L003-14, dated March 10, 2014, including Appendices 1, 2, and 3 (the issue date is not specified on the appendices).
For airplanes on which a gap check specified in paragraph (h) of this AD has been done: Except as required by paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, report all findings (including no findings) to Airbus, in accordance with Airbus AOT A32L003-14, dated March 10, 2014, including Appendices 1, 2, and 3, (the issue date is not specified on the appendices).
(1) If the gap check was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the gap check.
(2) If the gap check was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA
(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 May 14, 2014, (79 FR 23909, April 29, 2014).
(i) Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A32L003-14, dated March 10, 2014, including Appendices 1, 2, and 3 (the issue date is not specified on the appendices).
(ii) Reserved.
(4) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS—Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; 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:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action removes Class E airspace at Forrest City Municipal Airport, Forrest City, AR, due to the cancellation of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations. The FAA is taking this action to enhance airspace management within the National Airspace System (NAS).
Effective 0901 UTC, August 20, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 29591; telephone: 202-267-8783.
Rebecca Shelby, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817-321-7740.
On December 3, 2014, the FAA published in the
This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by removing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Forrest City Municipal Airport, Forrest City, AR. Controlled airspace is no longer needed due to cancellation of standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it removes controlled airspace at Forrest City Municipal Airport, Forrest City, AR.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace at Clark, SD. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at Clark County Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport. This action also corrects the state to SD under the airport designation, and amends the geographic coordinates of the airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, August 20, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 29591; telephone: 202-267-8783.
Rebecca Shelby, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817-321-7740.
On December 2, 2014, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Clark County Airport, Clark, SD, to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at the airport. This action enhances the safety and management of IFR operations for SIAPs at the airport. Additionally, this action amends the state identifier from ND to SD, and adjusts the geographical coordinates from lat. 48°28′48″ N., long. 99°14′11″ W., to lat. 44°53′42″ N., long. 097°42′38″ W., to be in concert with the FAA aeronautical database.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g);, 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Clark County Airport.
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notification of effective date.
NOAA published a final rule to prohibit the introduction of introduced species into the state waters of Gulf of the Farallones and Monterey Bay national marine sanctuaries, and to revise the corresponding sanctuary terms of designation on February 19, 2015 (80 FR 8778). Pursuant to Section 304(b) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1434(b)) the final regulations take effect after 45 days of continuous session of Congress beginning on February 19, 2015. Through this notification, NOAA is announcing the regulations became effective on May 15, 2015.
The regulations published on February 19, 2015 (80 FR 8778) are effective as of May 15, 2015.
Dave Lott, Regional Operations Coordinator, West Coast Region, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, 99 Pacific Street, STE 100F, Monterey, CA 93940. (831) 647-1920.
On February 19, 2015, NOAA finalized regulations that prohibit the introduction of introduced species into the state waters of Gulf of the Farallones and Monterey Bay national marine sanctuaries (80 FR 8778). Those regulations became effective on May 15, 2015.
Department of State.
Final rule.
The Department of State is revising the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to rescind the previous policy of denying the export of defense articles and defense services to Fiji.
This rule is effective on May 29, 2015.
Mr. C. Edward Peartree, Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, Department of State, telephone (202) 663-2792; email
The Department of State is amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to update the defense trade policy regarding Fiji. On September 17, 2014, Fiji's acting government followed through on its longstanding commitment to hold democratic elections. A Multinational Observer Group of over 90 international observers, representing 14 countries including the United States, characterized the election as credible and having represented the will of the people of Fiji. The Department has determined that is in the best interests of U.S. foreign policy, national security, and human rights concerns to rescind the previous policy of denying the export of defense articles and defense services to Fiji.
The Department of State is of the opinion that controlling the import and export of defense articles and services is a foreign affairs function of the United States government and that rules
Since the Department is of the opinion that this rule is exempt from the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, there is no requirement for an analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This rulemaking does not involve a mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This rulemaking has been found not to be a major rule within the meaning of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
This rulemaking will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this rulemaking.
The Department is of the opinion that controlling the import and export of defense articles and services is a foreign affairs function of the United States government and that rules governing the conduct of this function are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866. However, the Department has reviewed the rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in the Executive Order.
The Department of State has considered this rule in light of Executive Order 13563, dated January 18, 2011, and affirms that this regulation is consistent with the guidance therein.
The Department of State has reviewed this rulemaking in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
The Department of State has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not pre-empt tribal law. Accordingly, the provisions of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rulemaking.
This rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Arms and munitions, Exports.
For the reasons set forth above, 22 CFR part 126 is amended as follows:
Secs. 2, 38, 40, 42, and 71, Pub. L. 90-629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 2780, 2791, and 2797); 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 22 U.S.C. 287c; E.O. 12918, 59 FR 28205; 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 899; Sec. 1225, Pub. L. 108-375; Sec. 7089, Pub. L. 111-117; Pub. L. 111-266; Sections 7045 and 7046, Pub. L. 112-74; E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129.
(p) [Reserved]
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), Department of Justice.
Final rule.
The Department of Justice is finalizing without change an amendment to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regulations to remove those defense articles currently on the United States Munitions Import List that ATF by delegation has determined no longer warrant import control under the Arms Export Control Act.
This rule is effective June 29, 2015.
George M. Fodor, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-7070.
Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (AECA), 22 U.S.C. 2778, as amended, authorizes the President, in furtherance of world peace and the security and foreign policy of the United States, to control the import and the export of defense articles and defense services. 22 U.S.C. 2778(a)(1). The AECA also authorizes the President to designate those items that shall be considered defense articles and defense services for the purposes of section 38, and to promulgate regulations for the
Through Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, the President delegated his AECA authority to the Secretary of State with respect to the export and temporary import of defense articles and defense services. 78 FR 16129. The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 22 CFR part 120
Also through Executive Order 13637, the President delegated to the Attorney General the authority under the AECA to control the permanent import of defense articles and defense services. In exercising that authority, the Attorney General “shall be guided by the views of the Secretary of State on matters affecting world peace, and the external security and foreign policy of the United States.”
To distinguish the regulatory list of defense articles and defense services controlled by the Attorney General for permanent import from the regulatory list of defense articles and defense services controlled by the Secretary of State for export and temporary import, the list of defense articles and defense services controlled by the Attorney General for permanent import is designated as the United States Munitions Import List (USMIL). The regulations governing this list appear at 27 CFR part 447.
The Attorney General delegated administration of the import provisions of the AECA to the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), subject to the direction of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. 28 CFR 0.130(a). ATF promulgated regulations that implement the provisions of section 38 of the AECA in 27 CFR part 447. With guidance from the Department of State and concurrence from the Departments of State and Defense pursuant to Executive Order 13637, ATF administers the list of items subject to import control under the USMIL, at 27 CFR 447.21.
In August 2009, the President directed a broad-based interagency review of the United States export control system in part to identify additional ways to enhance national security, better focus resources on protecting items for export that need to be protected, and provide clarity to make it easier for exporters to comply with regulations and for the United States Government to administer and enforce the regulations. As the result of a comprehensive review of export controls, it was determined that certain defense articles and defense services listed on the USML no longer warrant control for export purposes by the Secretary of State pursuant to the AECA. Those defense articles are being transferred to the Department of Commerce's Commerce Control List for export control under the authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1701
In effecting the President's export control reform initiative, the export control reform interagency task force determined that removing unnecessary items from the USMIL would improve the United States import control system and enhance national security by focusing resources on imports that need to be protected. Accordingly, the task force requested ATF to identify those defense articles that no longer warrant control on the USMIL.
On March 27, 2014, ATF published an interim final rule with a request for comments (79 FR 17024-17029) entitled “Importation of Arms, Ammunition and Defense Articles—Removal of Certain Defense Articles Currently on the U.S. Munitions Import List That No Longer Warrant Import Control Under the Arms Export Control Act.”
In developing this interim final rule, ATF reviewed the USMIL in accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” and the export control reform interagency task force request. The interim final rule removed from the USMIL those defense articles that ATF by delegation determined no longer warrant import control under the AECA.
The comment period for the interim final rule closed on June 25, 2014. ATF received one comment in response to the interim final rule. The commenter states that the rule creates additional legal requirements without providing measures to prevent crime. The Department believes that the rule in fact has the opposite effect, decreasing legal requirements by removing defense articles from the USMIL while enhancing national security by focusing resources on imports that need to be protected.
Upon review, the Department is issuing this final rule to implement the amendments to the regulations at 27 CFR 447.21 that were provided in the interim final rule published on March 27, 2014 (79 FR 17024-17029).
Pursuant to Executive Order 13637, the Department of State and the Department of Defense have concurred on this final rule amending the USMIL.
Because the amendments to 27 CFR part 447 involve a foreign affairs function of the United States, Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” does not apply.
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” the Attorney General has determined that this regulation does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in subsections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.”
As reflected in 27 CFR 447.54, amendments made to 27 CFR part 447 are exempt from the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553 because this part involves a foreign affairs function of the United States.
The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis are not applicable to this final rule because the Department was not required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law.
This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule is not likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not apply to this rule because there are no reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
Copies of the interim final rule and the comment received are available for public inspection through the Federal e-Government portal,
The author of this document is George M. Fodor, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and munitions, Chemicals, Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment, Seizures and forfeitures.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the preamble, the interim final rule amending part 447 of title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which was published at 79 FR 17024 on March 27, 2014, is adopted as a final rule, without change.
Department of Justice.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the Department's regulations to increase the authority currently delegated to the Assistant Attorneys General to compromise or close civil claims and to make certain technical corrections.
Effective May 29, 2015
August E. Flentje, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530; (202) 514-3309.
The current delegations of authority to compromise or close civil claims are contained in 28 CFR part 0, subpart Y, §§ 0.160-0.169.
This final rule amends 28 CFR 0.160(a)(1) to increase the authority of the Assistant Attorneys General to compromise a civil claim asserted by the United States where the proposed settlement is within $10 million or 15 percent of the original claim (up from the current threshold of $2 million or 15 percent of the original claim). As provided in § 0.164, this change to § 0.160(a)(1) also means that the Assistant Attorneys General will have authority to close affirmative civil matters within the same new limits.
The final rule adds a new paragraph § 0.160(a)(2) to allow the Assistant Attorneys General to accept compromises in affirmative civil cases independent of the $10 million cap in the limited circumstance where a qualified financial expert has reviewed the defendant's finances and has determined that the defendant likely does not have the ability to pay more than the proposed compromise offer. This would obviate the need to obtain higher level approval when claims are being compromised simply based on the defendant's financial condition rather than an analysis of the legal or factual merits of the claim. To clarify that new § 0.160(a)(2) applies to all cases within the authority of the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, including cases brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601
In addition, the final rule also increases the authority for the Assistant Attorneys General to accept offers in compromise of claims asserted against the United States of up to $4 million (up from the current threshold of $2 million).
The final rule also amends § 0.168(d) to allow a delegation of authority to the United States Attorneys to compromise claims asserted by the United States for up to $10 million (up from a claim of $5 million where the settlement difference does not exceed $1 million). Citations to subsections of § 0.160 in §§ 0.162 and 0.168 also have been revised in light of the changes to § 0.160.
Finally, this final rule would update the agency reference in § 0.169(b) defining the term “gross amount of the original claim” for purposes of any civil claim brought under section 592 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
This rule relates to a matter of agency management or personnel and is a rule of agency organization, procedure, and practice. As such, this rule is exempt from the usual requirements of prior notice and comment and a 30-day delay in effective date.
The Attorney General, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), has reviewed this rule, and by approving it, certifies that it will not have an impact on a substantial number of small entities because it pertains to personnel and administrative matters affecting the Department. Further, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required for this final rule because the Department was not required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this matter.
This rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” section l(b), Principles of Regulation, and with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” This final rule is “limited to agency organization, management, or personnel matters” and thus is not a “rule” as described by Executive Order 12866, section 3(d)(3) and, therefore, is not a “regulation” or “rule” as defined by that Executive Order.
This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.”
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” the Department has determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501
This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
This action pertains to agency management, personnel, and organization and does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. Accordingly, it is not a “rule” for purposes of the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801.
Authority delegations (Government agencies), Government employees, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Whistleblowing.
Accordingly, by virtue of the authority vested in me as Attorney General, including 5 U.S.C. 301 and 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, and for the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 0 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 515-19.
(a) Subject to the limitations set forth in paragraph (d) of this section, Assistant Attorneys General are authorized, with respect to matters assigned to their respective divisions, to:
(1) Accept offers in compromise of claims asserted by the United States in all cases in which the difference between the gross amount of the original claim and the proposed settlement does not exceed $10,000,000 or 15 percent of the original claim, whichever is greater;
(2) Accept offers in compromise of claims asserted by the United States in all cases in which a qualified financial expert has determined that the offer in compromise is likely the maximum that the offeror has the ability to pay;
(3) Accept offers in compromise of, or settle administratively, claims against the United States in all cases in which the principal amount of the proposed settlement does not exceed $4,000,000; and
(4) Accept offers in compromise in all nonmonetary cases.
(c) Subject to the limitations set forth in paragraph (d) of this section, the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, is further authorized to approve settlements under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601
(2) Parties whose responsibility can be equitably allocated and are paying at least the allocated amount.
The revisions read as follows:
(d) Subject to the limitations set forth in § 0.160(d) and paragraph (a) of this section, redelegations by the Assistant Attorneys General to United States Attorneys may include the authority to:
(1) Accept offers in compromise of claims asserted by the United States in all cases in which the gross amount of
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of metconazole in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). In addition, this regulation removes established tolerances for certain commodities/groups superseded by this action, and deletes expired tolerances.
This regulation is effective May 29, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before July 28, 2015, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0230, is available at
Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Publishing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0230 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before July 28, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0230, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has determined the tolerance for the sunflower subgroup 20B should be 0.7 ppm. The reason for this change is explained in Unit IV.D.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for metconazole including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with metconazole follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Metconazole affects the liver, kidney, spleen, and various blood parameters at various dose levels across species. Specifically, in the mouse, rat, and dog, liver toxicity was seen after oral exposure in both subchronic and chronic exposures. Metconazole produces liver tumors in mice through a mitogenic mode of action (
Oral studies revealed critical effects of metconazole on body weight and blood erythrocyte and/or platelet parameters in the mouse, rat, dog and/or rabbit. Hyperplasia and increased weight were observed in the spleen in the mouse, rat, and dog at dose levels where liver affects were also observed. Lenticular degeneration (cataracts) were observed at the highest dose tested 114 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) in dogs. In addition, there was evidence that at high dietary levels metconazole is a gastrointestinal irritant in the dog.
In rats and rabbits developmental studies displayed some evidence of developmental effects but largely at dose levels that are maternally toxic. There was no quantitative or qualitative susceptibility in rabbit fetuses after
Metconazole did not demonstrate neurotoxicity in the subchronic neurotoxicity study, or any of the other studies in the toxicity data base. The requirement for an acute neurotoxicity study has been waived because of the absence of neurotoxic signs throughout the database, even at the highest dose levels tested.
There was no evidence of immunotoxicity at dose levels that produced systemic toxicity. No immunotoxic effects are evident for metconazole at dose levels as high as 52 (mg/kg/day) in rats, which is 12 times higher than the chronic dietary point of departure (4.3 mg/kg/day).
EPA has classified metconazole as: “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” based on convincing evidence demonstrating the following: (1) That a non-genotoxic mode of action for liver tumors was established in the mouse; (2) that the carcinogenic effects were not likely to occur below a defined dose that does not cause mitogenesis based on bioassays in the rat and the mouse; and (3) a lack of
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by metconazole as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the LOAEL from the toxicity studies can be found at
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
1.
i.
No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for metconazole for the general population including infants and children; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary for the general population.
Such effects were identified for metconazole for females 13-49 years old. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID). This software incorporates 2003-2008 food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT) and tolerance-level residues for most crops. For cereal grains and livestock commodities, maximum residue levels of metabolites from field trials were added to the metconazole tolerance levels.
ii.
iii.
iv.
2.
Based on the Tier I Pesticide Root Zone Model-Ground Water (PRZM-GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWC) of metconazole are estimated to be 51.8 parts per billion (ppb) for acute exposures and not applicable for chronic (non-cancer) exposures. Based on the Tier II Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC) model, the EDWCs are estimated to be 49.6 ppb for acute exposures and 43.9 ppb for chronic (non-cancer) exposures.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment for females, the water concentration value of 51.8 ppb-was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 43.9 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
3.
Metconazole is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Turf and ornamentals. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: For residential handler exposure, the Agency assumed that residential use will result in short-term (1-30 days) dermal and inhalation exposures. Because there was no dermal endpoint chosen for metconazole, residential handler risk from exposure to metconazole was assessed for the inhalation route only.
The Agency assumed that post-application exposure in residential settings is short-term in duration only. No dermal endpoint was chosen for metconazole; therefore a dermal post-application risk assessment was not conducted for adults or children. Residential post-application inhalation exposure in outdoor settings is considered negligible. The scenarios evaluated were short-term post-application incidental oral exposure to children 1 to <2 years old from granular and water dispersible granular metconazole formulations.
In the previous tolerance action for metconazole which published in the
4.
Metconazole is a member of the triazole-containing class of pesticides, the conazoles. Although conazoles act similarly in plants by inhibiting ergosterol biosynthesis, there is not necessarily a relationship between their pesticidal activity and their mechanism of toxicity in mammals. Structural similarities do not constitute a common mechanism of toxicity. Evidence is needed to establish that the chemicals operate by the same, or essentially the same, sequence of major biochemical events (EPA, 2002). In conazoles, however, a variable pattern of toxicological responses is found; some are hepatotoxic and hepatocarcinogenic in mice. Some induce thyroid tumors in rats. Some induce developmental, reproductive, and neurological effects in rodents. Furthermore, the conazoles produce a diverse range of biochemical events, including altered cholesterol levels, stress responses, and altered DNA methylation. It is not clearly understood whether these biochemical events are directly connected to their toxicological outcomes. Thus, there is currently no conclusive data to indicate that conazoles share common mechanisms of toxicity and EPA is not following a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity for the conazoles. For information regarding EPA's procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism of toxicity, see EPA's Web site at
Metconazole is a triazole-derived pesticide. This class of compounds can form the common metabolite 1,2,4-triazole and two triazole conjugates (triazolylalanine and triazolylacetic acid). To support existing tolerances and to establish new tolerances for triazole-derivative pesticides, including metconazole, EPA conducted a human health risk assessment for exposure to 1,2,4-triazole, triazolylalanine, and triazolylacetic acid resulting from the use of all current and pending uses of any triazole-derived fungicide. The risk assessment is a highly conservative, screening-level evaluation in terms of hazards associated with common metabolites (
An updated dietary exposure and risk analysis for the common triazole metabolites 1,2,4-triazole (T), triazolylalanine (TA), triazolylacetic acid (TAA), and triazolylpyruvic acid (TP) was conducted in October 2013, in association with a registration request for several other triazole fungicides. That analysis concluded that risk estimates were below the Agency's level of concern for all population groups. The proposed new uses of metconazole did not result in an increase in the dietary exposure estimates for free triazole or conjugated triazoles. Therefore, this last dietary exposure analysis for free triazole or conjugated triazoles did not need to be updated. A copy of this assessment may be found in the docket for this action at
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for metconazole is complete, except for the subchronic inhalation study. A 10x uncertainty factor has been retained for purposes of determining the inhalation endpoint to account for the absence of this data. However, only adult handlers are expected to be exposed via the inhalation route.
ii. There is no indication that metconazole is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. Although one developmental rat study showed indications of quantitative susceptibility, EPA has determined that additional safety factors are not necessary to account for any potential risk because that susceptibility was not corroborated by the other developmental and reproduction studies and the developmental NOAEL for the study that showed quantitative susceptibility is well defined. Moreover, the dose/endpoint identified in the rat developmental study is being used for acute dietary risk assessment for the sensitive population.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues for most crops. For cereal grains and livestock commodities, maximum residue levels of metabolites from field trials were added to the metconazole tolerance levels. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to metconazole in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of children 1 to <2 years old. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by metconazole.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOEs of 630 for children 1 to <2 years old, which is not of concern. For adults, oral dietary and inhalation risk estimates were combined using the total aggregated risk index (ARI) methodology since the levels of concern (LOC) for oral dietary exposure (LOC = 100) and inhalation exposure (LOC = 1,000) are different. The short-term aggregate ARI for adults is 5.3, which is greater than 1 and is therefore not of concern.
4.
5.
6.
Adequate enforcement methodology (Nitrogen-Phosphorus-Detection (GC/NPD) method, Valent Method RM-41C-1-1) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.
The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905;
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL for metconazole.
EPA received two comments to the Notice of Filling. One comment concerned a chemical other than metconazole and therefore is not relevant to this action. The other was a request to reconsider “loosening tolerances” for several pesticide petitions, including for metconazole. The commenter points to an American Academy of Pediatrics Policy statement regarding pesticide exposure in children, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report on human exposure to environmental chemicals, and a President's Cancer Panel regarding reducing environmental cancer risks in supporting the request to reconsider the tolerance amendments proposed for metconazole.
The Agency understands the commenter's concerns and recognizes that some individuals believe that certain pesticide chemicals should not be permitted in our food, or that pesticide tolerances should be “significantly tightened” as the commenter notes. However, the existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) states that tolerances may be set when EPA determines that aggregate exposure to that pesticide is safe,
The petitioner requested a tolerance on the sunflower subgroup 20B at 0.9 ppm. EPA is establishing a tolerance for that subgroup at 0.7 ppm based on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) tolerance calculation procedures.
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of metconazole, 5-[(4-chlorophenyl)-methyl]-2,-2-dimethyl-1-(1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-ylmethyl)-cyclopentanol, in or on fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 0.2 ppm; nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.04 ppm; pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C at 0.15 ppm; rapeseed subgroup 20A at 0.08 ppm; and sunflower subgroup 20B at 0.7 ppm. Additionally, the existing tolerances for canola seed; fruit, stone, group 12; nut, tree, group 14; and pistachio are being removed since they are superseded by this action.
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerances in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
The additions and revision read as follows:
(a) * * *
(b)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of mesotrione in or on almond, hulls, fruit, citrus, group 10-10; fruit, pome, group 11-10; fruit, stone, group 12-12; and nut, tree, group 14-12. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective May 29, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before July 28, 2015, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0303, is available at
Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Publishing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0303 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before July 28, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0303, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has revised the tolerance for residues of mesotrione in or on fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.01 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.01 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 0.01 ppm; nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.01 ppm; and almond, hulls at 0.02 ppm. The reason for these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for mesotrione including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with mesotrione follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
In subchronic and chronic oral studies in the rat, mouse, and dog, mesotrione produced ocular (ocular discharge and corneal abnormalities and lesions), kidney (increased organ weights), and liver effects (increased organ weights and hepatocyte fat vacuolation), which are consistent with the mammalian toxicity profile for hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD) inhibitors caused by high tyrosine levels in the blood. Body-weight decrements and decreased food consumption were also noted in mice and rats in multiple studies. Even though the rat was found to be the most sensitive species for these effects, the mouse was identified as a more appropriate model for assessing human risk due to similar activity in mice and humans of an enzyme involved in tyrosine catabolism. There was evidence of increased quantitative susceptibility of rats and mice in the developmental and reproduction toxicity studies. Offspring effects in the developmental toxicity studies were evidenced by delayed ossification and ancillary ribs and vertebrae at doses below or in the absence of maternal toxicity in both species. In the reproduction toxicity studies, tyrosinemia and ocular discharge were observed in offspring at doses below those for parental toxicity, which was evidenced by increased organ weights (liver in the rat and kidney in the mouse) and tyrosinemia.
Mesotrione was classified as having low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes (Toxicity Categories III or IV). It is classified as a mild eye irritant, but it is not a dermal sensitizer or dermal irritant.
There was no evidence of neurotoxicity, mutagenicity, carcinogenic potential, or immunotoxicity in relevant studies. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by mesotrione as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for mesotrione used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.
1.
i.
No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for mesotrione; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
ii.
iii.
iv.
2.
Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) for surface
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model.
For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 18.4 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
3.
Mesotrione is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Golf course turf, home lawns, and recreational turf. Both liquid and granular formulations are registered, resulting in potential residential handler (dermal and inhalation) and post-application (dermal and incidental oral) exposures. Residential handler (dermal plus inhalation) exposures were assessed for adults using various handheld equipment. Post-application dermal exposure was assessed for adults, as well as children 11 to <16 years old, children 6 to <11 years old, and children 1 to <2 years old performing various activities on turf. For children 1 to <2 years old, incidental oral (hand-to-mouth) post-application exposure was also assessed. These uses were assessed using the revised 2012 Residential Standard Operating Procedures. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at
4.
There are marked differences among species in the ocular toxicity associated with inhibition of HPPD. Ocular effects following treatment with HPPD inhibitor herbicides are seen in the rat but not in the mouse. Monkeys also seem to be recalcitrant to the ocular toxicity induced by HPPD inhibition. One explanation for this species-specific response in ocular opacity may be related to species differences in the clearance of tyrosine. A metabolic pathway exists to remove tyrosine from the blood that involves the liver enzyme TAT. In contrast to rats where ocular toxicity is observed following exposure to HPPD-inhibiting herbicides, mice and humans are unlikely to achieve the levels of plasma tyrosine necessary to produce ocular opacities because the activity of TAT in these species is much greater compared to rats.
HPPD inhibitors (
Therefore, exposures to environmental residues of HPPD-inhibiting herbicides are unlikely to result in the high blood levels of tyrosine and ocular toxicity in humans due to an efficient metabolic process to handle excess tyrosine. The Agency continues to study the complex relationships between elevated tyrosine levels and biological effects in various species. In the future, assessments of HPPD-inhibiting herbicides may consider more appropriate models and cross species extrapolation methods. Therefore, EPA has not conducted cumulative risk assessment with other HPPD inhibitors.
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for mesotrione is adequate for FQPA assessment.
ii. There is no indication that mesotrione is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. The ocular discharge seen in the reproduction toxicity study in mice provided a highly conservative endpoint. The LOAEL for this study is currently the lowest dose tested. The incidence of ocular discharge lacked a clear dose response, but an effect was evident at the highest dose tested indicating that the choice of LOAEL in this study may also be conservative.
iv. There is low concern for susceptibility seen in the developmental and reproduction toxicity studies because the doses and endpoints selected are protective of effects seen in these studies. The doses and endpoints are also protective of developmental effects observed in the rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies.
v. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to mesotrione in drinking water. The residential exposure assessments are based upon
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
Short- and intermediate-term aggregate risk is made up of dietary and non-dietary sources of exposure. Since mesotrione has residential uses on turf, including golf courses, commercial, and residential sites, handler and post-application residential exposure is expected. Short- and intermediate-term aggregate risk is made up of average dietary exposures from food and drinking water sources, dermal, inhalation and oral (children only) residential exposures.
Dietary (food + drinking water) exposure estimates are based on a conservative, unrefined chronic dietary exposure assessment. Residential exposure estimates are conservative estimates due to the standard assumptions that were built into the calculations. For adults, dermal plus inhalation exposures from handler activities were factored into the aggregate risk calculations. For children (6 to <11 years old) and children (11 to <16 years old, post-application dermal exposure from activities on treated turf were factored into the aggregate risk calculations. For children (1 to <2 years old), both dermal and incidental oral exposures were factored into the short-and intermediate-term aggregate risk calculations as incidental oral exposure is possible for this population. All short-and intermediate-term aggregate MOEs are not of concern (children 1 to <2 years, MOE = 1,400; children 6 to <11 years, MOE = 4,500; children 11 to <16 years, MOE = 5,800; and adults, MOE = 3,200).
4.
5.
Adequate enforcement methodology (high-performance liquid chromatography method with fluorescence detection) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL for mesotrione.
On September 2, 2014, EPA published a notice of filing in the
The petitioned-for tolerance commodity definition for citrus, pome fruit, stone fruit, and tree nuts are being revised to conform with EPA preferred terms. In addition, based on the method LOQ of 0.01 ppm, EPA is revising the petitioned-for tolerance in/on almond hull of 0.02 ppm rather than 0.015 ppm.
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues mesotrione in or on almond, hulls at 0.02 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.01 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.01 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 0.01 ppm; and nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.01 ppm.
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(a) * * *
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
The Commission has before it a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued in response to a petition for rulemaking filed by WJAR Licensee, LLC (the Licensee), the licensee of WJAR(TV), channel 51, Providence, Rhode Island, requesting the substitution of channel 50 for channel 51 at Providence. The licensee filed comments reaffirming its interest in the proposed channel substitution and stated that if the proposal is granted, it will promptly file an application for the facilities specified in its rulemaking petition and construct the station. The licensee asserts that adopting the proposed channel substitution would serve the public interest because it would remove any potential interference with a wireless licensee in the Lower 700 MHz A Block located adjacent to channel 51 in Providence, Rhode Island-New Bedford, Massachusetts and Boston, Massachusetts television markets.
This rule is effective May 29, 2015.
Jeremy Miller,
This is a synopsis of the Commission's
This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any
The Commission will send a copy of this
Television.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, and 339.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to remove Class D airspace at Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport, Springfield, OH. The closure of the air traffic control tower has necessitated the need to remove the Class D airspace area at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before July 13, 2015.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2014-1071; Airspace Docket No. 14-AGL-15, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783.
Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 321-7740.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA 2014-1071 and Airspace Docket No. 14-AGL-15) and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2014-1071 and Airspace Docket No. 14-AGL-15”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by removing Class D airspace at Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport, Springfield, OH. The closing of the air traffic control tower at Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport has made this action necessary for the efficient use of airspace within the National Airspace System.
Class D airspace areas are published in paragraph 5000, of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) is not a “significant regulatory action”
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would remove controlled airspace at Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport, Springfield, OH.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), Department of Justice.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Department of Justice proposes amending Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regulations to remove the reference to an outdated guidance document in an explanatory note following the table of separation distances of ammonium nitrate and blasting agents from explosives or blasting agents. The Department also proposes amending that note to clarify that those separation distance requirements apply to all ammonium nitrate.
Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must be submitted on or before August 27, 2015. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management system will not accept comments after midnight Eastern Standard Time on the last day of the comment period.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number (ATF 2002R-226P), by any of the following methods—
•
•
•
Denise Brown, Enforcement Programs and Services, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-7105.
Title XI of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Public Law 91-452, added chapter 40 (“Importation, Manufacture, Distribution and Storage of Explosive Materials”) to title 18 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). One purpose of title XI is to reduce the “hazard to persons and property arising from misuse and unsafe or insecure storage of explosive materials.” Public Law 91-452, sec. 1101, 84 Stat. 922, 952 (1970).
The Attorney General is responsible for implementing title XI.
The regulations at 27 CFR 555.220 set forth a table of separation distances of ammonium nitrate and blasting agents from explosives or blasting agents (the § 555.220 Table of Distances) followed by six explanatory notes. In this table, the term “separation distance” means the minimum distance that must be maintained between stores of certain materials, such as high explosives, and blasting agents. The third note states that the distances specified in the § 555.220 Table of Distances “apply to ammonium nitrate that passes the
The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) is a voluntary, non-profit trade association that currently has more than 175 members.
The Agricultural Nitrogen Institute, a predecessor organization of TFI, first developed the “Definition and Test Procedures for Ammonium Nitrate Fertilizer” guidance document.
On March 19, 2002, TFI filed a petition with ATF requesting that ATF amend the explosives regulations at § 555.220 to remove the reference to the August 1984 guidance. TFI explained that the document is outdated because TFI last published it in 1984, will not review or update it, and cannot ensure that its procedures are still valid. TFI recognized that ATF may require an alternate method of determining the insensitivity of ammonium nitrate fertilizer and suggested that ATF reference certain Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations.
The DOT regulations include several definitions and two hazardous classifications (Class 5.1 and Class 9) for ammonium nitrate based fertilizers based on the amount of combustible material included in the fertilizer.
Based upon TFI's petition, ATF published in the
ATF received three comments in response to the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking. Two of the commenters are explosive and fertilizer trade associations, and one commenter is an associate member of an explosive and fertilizer trade association. All of the commenters support removing the reference to the August 1984 guidance and adopting DOT regulations for classifying ammonium nitrate fertilizer in accordance with the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria.
The first commenter, the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME), believes that ATF should amend note three following the § 555.220 Table of Distances to be consistent with the source document, Appendix A of IME Safety Library Publication 2,
The petitioner, TFI, submitted the second comment. Like IME, TFI noted that IME removed references to the August 1984 guidance from its Safety Library Publication 2, the American Table of Distances, and that the NFPA adopted the same test as IME in NFPA 495. TFI also commented that ATF references NFPA and IME in its Table of Distances. TFI, therefore, supports IME's position concerning the use of the UN Test Series 1 and 2 Gap Tests.
The third commenter, an IME member company, fully supports IME's comments.
The Department does not agree that it should replace the current reference to the August 1984 guidance document with a reference to the UN Test Series 1 and 2 Gap Tests. The Department acknowledges that the United Nations has developed criteria, test methods, and procedures that are generally sufficient for competent authorities to use for the classification of dangerous goods during transport.
In addition, ATF is unaware of any commercially-produced ammonium nitrate manufactured for use with, and stored in the proximity of, explosives that would not fall under the § 555.220 Table of Distances, using the UN Test Series 1 and 2 Gap Tests under the commenters' proposed amendments. Because the UN tests would lead to all ammonium nitrate being subject to the § 555.220 Table of Distances, the costs of imposing the extra step of those tests would outweigh any benefits.
The Department thus proposes amending the third note following the § 555.220 Table of Distances to delete the reference to the August 1984 guidance and to state that all ammonium nitrate stored near high explosives and blasting agents is subject to the § 555.220 Table of Distances. The Department believes this proposal will not negatively affect the explosives industry because most ammonium nitrate currently located near stores of high explosives and blasting agents are already subject to the § 555.220 Table of Distances. Moreover, it is ATF's understanding that entities who store ammonium nitrate located near high explosives and blasting agents do not use the outdated August 1984 guidance referenced in the existing regulations and instead comply with the § 555.220 Table of Distances for all ammonium nitrate. This proposed removal of the reference to the outdated test does not address ammonium nitrate blends containing fuels. Generally, ammonium nitrate blends are subject to ATF's criteria for high explosives in § 555.202(a) or blasting agent in § 555.11. Ammonium nitrate blends that meet the criteria are ammonium nitrate explosive mixtures and designated as such in ATF's List of Explosive Materials, which is published annually pursuant to 27 CFR 555.23.
This proposed amendment will provide industry members with clear guidance on the application of these regulations governing the storage of explosive materials. Section 555.206(c)(2) states that all ammonium nitrate is subject to the separation distances requirements in § 555.220. The revision of the reference to the outdated August 1984 guidance in note three following the § 555.220 Table of Distances will make clear the application of the Table of Distances in relationship to all ammonium nitrate. All ammonium nitrate will be subject to the § 555.220 Table of Distances when stored within the sympathetic detonation distances of high explosives and blasting agents. Ammonium nitrate explosive mixtures that are high explosives pursuant to § 555.202(a) or are defined as a blasting agent pursuant to § 555.11, will be subject both to the table of distances for storage of explosive materials in § 555.218 and to the § 555.220 Table of Distances. In this way, the proposed amendment will continue to protect public safety by ensuring that all stores of ammonium nitrate located within the sympathetic detonation distances to high explosives or blasting agents meet minimum distances to inhabited buildings, highways, and passenger railways.
This proposed rule would amend the regulations of ATF governing the separation of distances of ammonium nitrate and blasting agents from explosives or blasting agents. The proposed rule would revise note three following the Table of Distances in 27 CFR 555.220 by removing the reference to the August 1984 guidance. The proposed rule would clarify that all ammonium nitrate is subject to 27 CFR 555.206(c)(2) and 555.220.
This proposed rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” section 1(b), The Principles of Regulation and in accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” section 1, General Principles of Regulation, and section 6, Retrospective Analyses of Existing Rules.
Both Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Department has assessed the costs and benefits of this regulation and believes that the regulatory approach selected maximizes net benefits.
This proposed rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, nor will it adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
Section 6 of Executive Order 13563, directs agencies to develop a plan to review existing significant rules that may be “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome,” and to make appropriate changes where warranted. The Department selected and reviewed this rule under the criteria set forth in its Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules, and determined that this proposed rule removes a reference to an outdated guidance document, clarifies the existing regulations, and continues to protect public safety. ATF welcomes public comment on its analysis of the proposed rule's likely effects.
This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” the Attorney General has determined that this proposed rule will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.”
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. The Attorney General has reviewed this rule and, by approving it, certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule updates the affected regulations by removing a reference to an outdated guidance document. The changes proposed in this rule are administrative and do not add any new requirements that would have any impact on the economy because: (1) The referenced test in explanatory note three was last published in 1984, is obsolete, and is not used by the explosives industry; and (2) the explosives industry already ensures their stores of ammonium nitrate are stored in accordance with the § 555.220 Table of Distances.
This proposed rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. This proposed rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This proposed rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
ATF is requesting additional comments on this proposed rule from all interested persons. ATF is also specifically requesting comments on the clarity of this proposed rule and how it may be made easier to understand.
All comments must reference this document docket number (ATF 2002R-226P), be legible, and include the commenter's name and mailing address. ATF will treat all comments as originals and it will not acknowledge receipt of comments.
Comments received on or before the closing date will be carefully considered. Comments received after that date will be given the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before the closing date.
Comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper format, will be made available for public viewing at ATF, and on the Internet as part of the eRulemaking initiative, and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Commenters who do not want their name or other personal identifying information posted on the Internet should submit their comments by mail or facsimile, along with a separate cover sheet that contains their personal identifying information. Both the cover sheet and comment must reference this docket number. Information contained in the cover sheet will not be posted on the Internet. Any personal identifying information that appears within the comment will be posted on the Internet and will not be redacted by ATF.
Any material that the commenter considers to be inappropriate for disclosure to the public should not be included in the comment. Any person submitting a comment shall specifically designate that portion (if any) of his comment that contains material that is confidential under law (
Comments may be submitted in any of three ways:
•
•
(1) Be legible and appear in a minimum 12 point size of type (.17 inches);
(2) Be on 8
(3) Contain a legible, written signature; and
(4) Be no more than five pages long. ATF will not accept faxed comments that exceed five pages.
•
Copies of the petition, this notice, and the comments received will be available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at: ATF Reading Room, Room 1E-063, 99 New York Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-7080.
The author of this document is Denise Brown, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations, Customs duties and inspection, Explosives, Hazardous materials, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Security measures, Seizures and forfeitures, Transportation, and Warehouses.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the preamble, 27 CFR part 555 is proposed to be amended as follows:
18 U.S.C. 847.
(3) These distances apply to all ammonium nitrate with respect to their separation from stores of high explosives and blasting agents. Ammonium nitrate explosive mixtures that are high explosives pursuant to § 555.202(a) or are defined as a blasting agent pursuant to § 555.11 are subject to the table of distances for storage of explosive materials in § 555.218 and to the table of separation distances of ammonium nitrate and blasting agents from explosives or blasting agents in § 555.220.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters of Mt. Hope Bay and the Taunton River in the vicinity of Fall River, MA, during the Fall River Grand Prix marine event from August 14-16, 2015. This safety zone is intended to safeguard mariners from the hazards associated with high-speed, high-performance motorboats competing in the event. Vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting through, mooring, or anchoring within this safety zone during periods of enforcement unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP), Southeastern New England or the COTP's designated representative.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 29, 2015. Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 19, 2015.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-0286 using any one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this proposed rule, contact Mr. Edward G. LeBlanc, Waterways Management Division at Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New England, telephone 401-435-2351, email
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2015-0286), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online (via
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of 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 a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under
The Coast Guard has not promulgated a rule for past iterations of this event.
The legal basis for the proposed rule is 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, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish regulatory safety zones.
This rule is necessary to provide for the safety of life and navigation, for both participants and spectators involved with the Fall River Grand Prix in Mt. Hope Bay and the Taunton River in the vicinity of Fall River, MA.
The initial Fall River Grand Prix is a three-day event where high-speed, high-performance motorboats participate in controlled races within a well-defined water area. The safety zone proposed in this NPRM will encompass the racing area and will include a buffer between the racing motorboats and spectator craft to provide a margin of safety. As these races are part of a national series of events, governed by a national racing and safety organization (the U.S. Offshore Powerboat Association), and operated by experienced high-speed motorboat crews and support teams, they are expected to generate local and regional media coverage, and attract spectators on a number of recreational and excursion vessels.
The Coast Guard is establishing this safety zone, in conjunction with the Fall River Grand Prix, to ensure the protection of the maritime public and event participants from the hazards associated with high-speed, high-performance motorboat racing. The Coast Guard anticipates little concern with the proposed safety zone by mariners, as there is little major commercial vessel activity in Mt. Hope Bay and the Taunton River in the vicinity of Fall River, MA, and most recreational vessels are not restricted to the deep draft channel and can easily transit via alternate routes. Also, the safety zone will be enforced only during periods of actual racing, which will be limited to only a few hours on each of the three days of the event.
Regardless, in the unlikely situation where a commercial or recreational vessel may still need to transit Mt. Hope Bay and the Taunton River in the vicinity of Fall River, MA, for any number of reasons including destination, familiarity with the waterway, tide restrictions, etc., these vessels may be able to continue transits through Mt. Hope Bay and the Taunton River, even during enforcement of the safety zone, as there will be sufficient room for most recreational vessels, and some commercial vessels, to pass to the west of the safety zone. Also, the Coast Guard routinely works with the local marine pilot organization and shipping agents to coordinate vessel transits during marine events, and will continue to do so for the entire event to avoid major interruptions to shipping schedules.
The Coast Guard proposes to add a temporary safety zone under 33 CFR T165.0286. The safety zone will encompass the navigation channel from approximately Mt. Hope Bay buoy R10 southwest of Brayton Point channel, and will extend approximately two miles to the northeast up to and including Mt. Hope Bay buoy C17 north of the I-195/Braga Bridge. The safety zone will be enforced only during times of actual vessel racing.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or executive orders.
This proposed 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, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
We expect the adverse economic impact of this proposed rule to be minimal. Although this regulation may have some adverse impact on the public, the potential impact will be minimized for the following reasons: The safety zone will be in effect for only a few hours each day for three consecutive days, and vessels will only be restricted from the zone in Mt. Hope Bay and the Taunton River in the vicinity of Fall River, MA during those limited periods when the races are actually ongoing; during periods when there is no actual racing (
Notification of the Fall River Grand Prix and the associated safety zone will be made to mariners through the Rhode Island Port Safety Forum, local Notice to Mariners, event sponsors, and local media well in advance of the event.
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 proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: owners or operators of vessels intending to transit in Mt. Hope Bay and the Taunton River in the vicinity of Fall River, MA, during the Fall River Grand Prix marine event.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (
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 proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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 under
This proposed rule would call for no 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 State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it 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 proposed rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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 proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed 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 made a preliminary determination that this action appears to be one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 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)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(d)
(2) No later than 8 a.m. each day of the event, the Coast Guard will announce via Safety Marine Information Broadcasts and local media the times and duration of each race scheduled for that day, and the precise area(s) of the safety zone that will be enforced.
(3) Vessels may not transit through or within the safety zone during periods of enforcement without Patrol Commander approval. Vessels permitted to transit must operate at a no-wake speed, in a manner which will not endanger participants or other crafts in the event.
(4) Spectators or other vessels shall not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the movement of event participants or official patrol vessels in the safety zone unless authorized by an official patrol vessel.
(5) The Patrol Commander may control the movement of all vessels in the safety zone. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the lawful directions issued. Failure to comply with a lawful direction may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
(6) The Patrol Commander may delay or terminate the Fall River Grand Prix at any time to ensure safety. Such action may be justified as a result of weather, traffic density, spectator operation or participant behavior.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA proposes to revoke the current exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for residues of banda de
Comments must be received on or before July 28, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0230, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Robert McNally, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
1.
2.
EPA is taking this action under section 408(e) the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(e), which allows EPA to initiate a tolerance action under FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .”
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) contains the same safety standard for establishing or leaving in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) requires the Agency to modify or revoke an exemption if the Agency determines it is not safe.
EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the regulatory requirements of FFDCA section 408 and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
EPA, on its own initiative under FFDCA section 408(c)(1)(B), is proposing to revoke the existing exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the fungicide BLAD in or on all food commodities as established in the
EPA is taking this action in response to concerns that were raised by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) about the potential allergenicity of BLAD for peanut-sensitive individuals following EPA's promulgation of the tolerance exemption of BLAD on all food commodities. Based on the potential uncertainty raised by those concerns, EPA sought additional data from the petitioner and reexamined the safety of the BLAD tolerance exemption. Following an assessment of the additional data that was provided, EPA has concluded that the available data supports establishing a more limited tolerance at the level of detection on specific commodities.
In the
Following EPA's establishment of a tolerance exemption for residues of BLAD on all food commodities, FDA raised concerns about the potential allergenicity of the BLAD protein for peanut-sensitive individuals. EPA's original review of the data in support of the establishment of a tolerance exemption had considered BLAD's potential allergenicity and concluded that the use of BLAD as pesticide would not result in any meaningful exposure to human health and the environment based on the following considerations. First, because lupines are commonly used in human and animal nutrition as a food and feed, EPA concluded that any dietary contribution from use of BLAD as a pesticide would be relatively limited. Second, the weight of evidence regarding the BLAD protein suggested low risk for allergenicity concerns upon application of the criteria set by the Codex Alimentarius (2003) and the Food and Agricultural Organizations of the United Nations/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) (2001):
• Amino acid homology: Having an amino acid residue similarity of greater than 35% over a sequence of 80 amino acids of a known allergenic protein (
• Having one or more sets of more than 6 contiguous amino acid residues that are identical to amino acids of a known allergenic protein. BLAD contains only one stretch of contiguous amino acid residues identical to
• Serum cross-reactivity to known allergens: Moneret-Vautrin
• Pepsin resistance: BLAD is readily degraded by proteolytic enzymes and
• Expression levels: Using immunological methods, residual levels of BLAD were not detectable 18 hours after application to tomatoes, relative to controls.
This information was used by the EPA to conclude that BLAD is not likely to be an allergen.
Nonetheless, FDA expressed concerns about the potential allergenicity of BLAD because lupine is known to incite food allergy in sensitive individuals and because of reports of cross-reactivity to lupine protein in peanut sensitive
In addition, EPA required residue chemistry field trials conducted on crops listed on the proposed pesticide label using PROBLAD PLUS, the end-use pesticide containing the BLAD protein, at label rates and exaggerated application rates (5X) to establish a rate of decline and residue levels of BLAD on crops tested. Upon receipt of all the new information, EPA reexamined the safety of BLAD.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity and exposure data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. Based upon that evaluation, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to BLAD residues under the tolerance proposed in this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with BLAD is discussed in this unit of the document.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
BLAD is a naturally occurring 20 kilo Dalton (kDa) polypeptide fragment of β-conglutin, a main storage protein in the flowering plant sweet lupines (
All of the toxicity data requirements have been fulfilled. EPA has concluded that the data are acceptable and no additional data are required. Data on the end-use product, PROBLAD PLUS, containing BLAD as its active ingredient, did not indicate toxicity endpoints. The toxicological information showed that PROBLAD PLUS has a low toxicity profile as noted in the test results for the following studies: Acute Oral Lowest Dose (LD)
As noted in Unit III., EPA re-examined the potential allergenicity of BLAD because of the concern raised about potential sensitivity of peanut-sensitive individuals. The following observations raised new questions about the potential for BLAD to pose an allergenicity concern:
1. BLAD comprises an internal segment of β-conglutin;
2. β-conglutin exhibits a relatively strong homology to the other members of the vicillin family, including well-known allergens contained in peanuts and soybeans (specifically
3. There are a considerable number of studies concerning the allergenicity of lupine-derived products.
EPA then evaluated the reactivity to BLAD in sensitive individuals.
A Skin Prick Test (SPT) with lupine or peanut extracts in order to establish a sampling population that was sensitive to lupines and/or peanuts was submitted to the Agency. The serum from a sensitive population that tested positive to lupine/peanut exposure through a SPT was used to evaluate the capacity of cross-reactivity to BLAD in these sensitive individuals. Negative results to BLAD in IgE-specific
Allergenicity relates to both a sensitizing exposure (sensitization leading to allergy cannot occur to a protein without a prior exposure) and a subsequent acute effect if allergy develops (a single exposure in a sensitive individual will cause a response). The difficulty with assessing allergenicity relates to determining a threshold level of exposure below which there is no reasonable expectation of eliciting a reaction in a sensitive individual. Although the new allergenicity data suggest that BLAD is not an allergen, the existing exemption from the requirement of a tolerance allows any amount of residue that might result from reasonably foreseeable uses of BLAD as a fungicide. In light of the similarity of BLAD to peanut allergens and documented allergies to lupines in the literature, the Agency believes the safety of BLAD also depends on demonstrating no detectable residues, in the absence of a demonstrated threshold level.
Specific information on the studies received and EPA's assessment of them can be found at
Based on the available toxicity and allergenicity data, the Agency did not identify any toxicological points of departure or levels of concern. Nevertheless, due the potential for allergenicity that might arise under the current exemption due to potentially unlimited exposure to residues of BLAD, the Agency is relying on data supporting a lack of exposure to BLAD residues on certain crops. Therefore, the Agency is conducting a qualitative assessment based on a lack of residues.
1.
Due to the potential for allergenicity, field trials using PROBLAD PLUS at the product-labeled application rate and an exaggerated application rate (5X) were submitted in order to determine levels of potential exposure and the rate of BLAD residue degradation. Those studies, conducted on grapes, tomatoes and strawberries, showed that even with multiple consecutive applications at exaggerated application rates, the residue levels of BLAD will be negligible or non-existent. Both studies (involving label and exaggerated
At label application rates, grape and strawberry samples showed no detectable residues (< limit of detection (LOD), 0.005 ppm) of BLAD on day zero; tomato samples showed BLAD residues < limit of quantitation (LOQ) (0.0062 ppm) on day zero but declined to < LOD levels one day after application. To ensure the reduction of any available residues, a one-day pre-harvest interval on PROBLAD PLUS labeling is being required.
Additionally, due to the presence of an almond husk and the subsequent processing of almond nut meats, the pre-harvest use of BLAD on almonds following good agricultural practices does not represent any reasonable possibility of resulting in detectable residues on the edible nut.
2.
3.
4.
EPA has not found BLAD to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and BLAD does not appear to degrade into any toxic metabolite or other substance of concern. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that BLAD does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that, in considering the establishment of a tolerance or tolerance exemption for a pesticide chemical residue, EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure, unless EPA determines that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data are available to support the choice of a different safety factor.
As part of its qualitative assessment, the Agency did not use safety factors for assessing risk; therefore, no additional safety factor is needed for assessing risk to infants and children. The available data indicate that BLAD has minimal or no toxicity and is not an allergen, especially in combination with the data demonstrating a lack of exposure from application as a pesticide. EPA therefore concludes that there are no threshold effects of concern to infants, children, or adults when BLAD is applied as a fungicide and used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.
Taking into consideration all available information on BLAD, EPA concludes that the potential for allergenicity of BLAD introduces a reasonable uncertainty concerning the potential for harm to peanut-sensitive individuals in light of the possibility for unlimited exposure to BLAD that might be permitted under an unlimited exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. To address that potential uncertainty, EPA is proposing to revoke the current tolerance exemption for BLAD in 40 CFR 180.1319. In its place, and in consideration of these potential concerns, EPA is proposing to establish a more limited tolerance of 0.005 ppm for residues of BLAD in or on almonds, grapes, strawberries, and tomatoes. This is based on crop-specific residue data on grapes, strawberries, and tomatoes that demonstrates a lack of residues on those specific crops. Additionally, due to the presence of an almond husk and the subsequent processing of almond nut meats, the pre-harvest use of BLAD on almonds following good agricultural practices does not represent any reasonable possibility of resulting in detectable residues on the edible nut.
Therefore, under this more limited scenario, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to the residues of BLAD when it is applied as fungicide to the specifically noted crops and used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices. Such exposure includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information. Based on this information, EPA expects that, when used according to the proposed label directions, the tolerance for residues of BLAD on the listed commodities is safe, and no adverse effects such as allergenic reactions are expected to occur.
Adequate enforcement methodology (Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA: EASI Method No: RA029 and RA031) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.
The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL for BLAD.
The revocation of the existing tolerance exemption and establishment of tolerances for four commodities is a reduction in allowable residues of BLAD on food. Therefore, EPA intends to provide notice to the World Trade Organization (WTO) of this proposal in accordance with its obligations under the WTO's Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement.
EPA proposes to revoke the existing tolerance exemption for residues of BLAD in or on all food commodities as established in the
This proposed action would revoke an existing exemption from the requirement of a tolerance and establish new tolerances under FFDCA section 408(e). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted tolerance actions from review under Executive Orders 12866, entitled
This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, but it does not regulate State or tribal governments. Nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). Therefore, the Agency has determined that Executive Orders 13132, entitled
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(a)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is seeking comment on a proposal to adopt mandatory pesticide label restrictions to protect managed bees under contract pollination services from foliar application of pesticides that are acutely toxic to bees on a contact exposure basis. These label restrictions would prohibit applications of pesticide products, which are acutely toxic to bees, during bloom when bees are known to be present under contract. EPA is also seeking comment on a proposal to rely on efforts made by states and tribes to reduce pesticide
Comments must be received on or before June 29, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0818, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
You may be potentially affected by this action if you produce an agricultural crop that is attractive to pollinators, if you are a beekeeper, or if you manufacture pesticides. In addition, state and tribal governments may be potentially affected by this action. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
1.
2.
A copy of EPA's Proposal to Mitigate Exposure to Bees from Acutely Toxic Pesticide Products is available in the docket under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0818.
EPA is proposing mandatory pesticide label restrictions to protect contracted managed bees,
EPA believes that managed bees not under contracted services (and other unmanaged bees) may also be exposed to acutely toxic pesticides when they are within forage range of the application site. While pesticide exposure under this scenario is possible, it is less certain than in situations where a pesticide is applied to a site when large numbers of managed bees have intentionally been positioned at the site for the purposes of providing pollination services. EPA believes that the lower likelihood of exposure for large numbers of managed bees in this scenario may warrant a more flexible approach toward mitigation such as that afforded by state or tribal Managed Pollinator Protection Plans (MP3s). Accordingly, EPA intends to encourage states and tribes to develop MP3s that are effective in reducing the likelihood of bees being present in the treatment area at the time a pesticide application is to be made. EPA would monitor success of these MP3s in mitigating risk to bees from acutely toxic pesticides on an ongoing basis and determine whether additional EPA action is warranted. Therefore, for managed bees not under contract pollination services, EPA is not proposing to require any new language
EPA is seeking comment on both the approach of label restrictions on products used for bees under contract for pollinator services, and for the approach to rely on state and tribal pollinator protection plans to bees that are not under contract for pollination services.
These actions are consistent with the Presidential directive issued in June 2014 to reduce the effect of factors that have been associated with pollinator declines in general as well as the mandate to engage state and tribal partners in the development of pollinator protection plans. While the proposed mitigation focuses on managed bees, EPA believes that in protecting managed bees, these measures will also protect native solitary and social bees that are in and around treatment areas. The proposed mitigation is based on an acute toxicity threshold and is not intended to supersede more restrictive product-specific use prohibitions. EPA will continue to conduct chemical-specific risk assessments for bees and will consider additional product-specific mitigation as needed in the Office of Pesticide Program's (OPP) registration and registration review programs.
EPA is seeking comments on the proposed approach to mitigate exposure to bees from acutely toxic pesticide products under contract and non-contract pollination scenarios. In addition, EPA is specifically seeking comment on several issues described in the policy paper.
EPA is proposing to prohibit the foliar application of acutely toxic products during bloom for sites with bees on-site under contract, unless the application is made in accordance with a government-declared public health response. EPA encourages growers and beekeepers to include provisions in pollination service contracts that take into account the increased likelihood of bee colony exposure and ensure that colonies will be protected and pollination services secured. If EPA receives evidence during the public comment period and/or through outreach at stakeholder meetings that such contract provisions are common or that there are other effective and mutually agreed upon stakeholder (
For sites not under contracted services, EPA believes that pollinator protection plans serve as examples of effective collaboration between stakeholders at the local level that can lead to reduced pesticide exposure and protection of managed bees while maintaining the flexibility needed by growers to protect crops. Based on feedback provided to EPA by state lead agencies that have developed such plans, beekeeper-to-grower communication has been enhanced and fewer bee kill incidents have been reported as a result of the plans. Across these diverse plans, the common element has been effective stakeholder engagement, and anecdotal reports from the stakeholder groups suggest that the plans are effective at increasing communication and cooperation. The development of pollinator protection plans is a voluntary way for states and tribes to address acute pesticide exposure to pollinators. EPA believes that a key factor for states and tribes to determine the effectiveness of managed pollinator protection plans will be to include mechanisms to measure the effectiveness and a process to periodically review and modify each plan. Please comment on EPA's proposal to address risk to non-contract bees through reliance on state and tribal plans. Also, given the uncertainties with incident data, what kind of measures should be used to demonstrate that state and tribal pollinator protection plans are effective?
EPA recognizes that there are a number of uncertainties that remain regarding chemicals and exposure scenarios that may not fall within the domain of the proposal. EPA is also interested in receiving feedback on these uncertainties, which are described in the proposal.
7 U.S.C. 136a.
Office of the Secretary (HHS).
Request for information.
This request for information seeks public comment regarding the health plan identifier (HPID) including the requirements regarding health plan enumeration and the requirement, to use the HPID in electronic health care transactions.
To be assured consideration, written or electronic comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on July 28, 2015.
In commenting, refer to file code CMS-0026-NC. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
1.
2.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3.
4.
(Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without Federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, call telephone number (410) 786-9994 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members.
Comments erroneously mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.
Geanelle G. Herring, (410) 786-4466. Chevell Thomas, (410) 786-1387.
Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951.
Section 262 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Public Law 104-191, added section 1173 to the Social Security Act (the Act) and required, among other things, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (the Secretary) to adopt standards providing for a standard unique health identifier for each health plan. The Congress renewed that requirement in 2010 in section 1104 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148), as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-152) (collectively known as the Affordable Care Act), requiring the Secretary to promulgate a final rule to establish a unique health plan identifier based on the input of the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, with such rulemaking to be effective not later than October 1, 2012.
In the September 5, 2012
The HPID final rule does not require covered entities to identify a health plan in a HIPAA transaction. But, where a covered entity does identify a health plan in a HIPAA transaction, the final rule specifies that, on or after November 7, 2016, it must use an HPID to do so.
In early 2014, the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics (NCVHS) conducted a number of hearings regarding the HPID. Those hearings yielded testimony from various segments of the industry expressing concerns about the HPID and the need for additional clarification and led the NCVHS, on September 23, 2014, to recommend that the Secretary specify that the HPID not be used in HIPAA transactions and clarify the HPID's use. On October 31, 2014, HHS exercised enforcement discretion and advised the public of a delay, until further notice, in enforcement of 45 CFR 162, Subpart E (the regulations pertaining to HPID enumeration and use) so that HHS could review the NCVHS's recommendations and consider next steps. (See
We are soliciting public input to assess the NCVHS's recommendations to determine whether policy changes may be warranted. We also note that, since the publication of the HPID final rule, the nation's health care system has experienced sweeping changes, including implementation of the Affordable Care Act's marketplaces. Therefore, we are requesting information regarding the following:
• The HPID enumeration structure outlined in the HPID final rule, including the use of the CHP/SHP and OEID concepts.
• The use of the HPID in HIPAA transactions in conjunction with the Payer ID.
• Whether changes to the nation's health care system, since the issuance of the HPID final rule published September 5, 2012, have altered your perspectives about the function of the HPID.
Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on
Department of Defense.
Proposed rule.
This rule establishes a clause allowing the Government to require that contractors provide Transporter Proof of Delivery (TPD) when requested. As used in this rule, TPD means a commercial document that is generated by the contractor or the contractor's transporter of supplies and is signed by the Government customer in order to document delivery of supplies under a contract or order.
Consideration will be given to all comments received on or before July 28, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Christine Bond Jawish, (703) 767-8451.
Not all Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) customers provide acknowledgement of receipt, which can lead to payment problems and negatively impact auditability. The TPD clause provides a mechanism for procuring proof of delivery from affected contractors, if the receiving activity has not acknowledged receipt of material. TPD documentation will be used as evidential matter in support of the receipt and acceptance functions, which will facilitate the payment process and support timely payment, thus decreasing Prompt Payment Act interest charges against the Government. It is estimated that on an annual basis, DLA pays approximately $800,000 in interest due to late payment.
The legal authority for the regulatory action is 41 U.S.C. 1303, the general authority for Federal Acquisition Regulations system rule making.
This regulatory action provides for issuance of a TPD clause that requires contractors to submit TPD information when requested. The clause will be applicable to solicitations and awards for acquisitions for supplies issued by DLA Aviation, DLA Land and Maritime, and DLA Troop Support when contract deliveries will be made directly to DLA customers, with the following exceptions: Acquisitions requiring DCMA Inspection and Acceptance, shipments for overseas destinations or to containerization consolidation points, and acquisitions conducted under the Subsistence Total Order and Receipt Electronic System (STORES), Defense Medical Logistics Standard Support (DMLSS), Industrial Prime Vendor (IPV), or Integrated Logistics Partner (ILP) programs.
TPD will normally be requested from a contractor only when it is known or appears likely, based on current or past experience, that a customer receiving supplies under the applicable contract or order will not provide material receipt acknowledgment (MRA) in a timely manner so as to support payment in accordance with Prompt Payment Act requirements.
The clause states that when the Government requests TPD, the request and response will be made using electronic mail and requires the contractor to submit the requested TPD documentation in a prescribed digital format. It is anticipated that contractors will either have or will easily be able to collect the TPD documentation in the normal course of business.
It is anticipated that costs related to use of the clause will not be significant. The information to be submitted under the clause is expected to be required only on an exception basis, is expected to be readily available to the contractors subject to the clause, and will normally be provided using electronic means (digital attachments to electronic mail).
Use of the clause will facilitate the contract payment process in instances where the normal system for receipt and acceptance is not functioning in a timely manner. It is anticipated that facilitation of the contract payment process will result in a decrease in Prompt Payment Act interest accrual and resulting payments to contractors by the Defense Logistics Agency.
It has been determined that 48 CFR part 5432 is a significant regulatory action and has been reviewed by OMB.
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.
It has been certified that this rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The implementation of this rule will facilitate the receipt documentation process and enhance the accountability of DLA-provided goods, as well as provide a basis for more efficient and expeditious payments to affected contractors.
Section 5432.2 of this proposed rule contains information collection requirements. DoD has submitted the following proposal to OMB under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DoD, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra at the Office of Management and Budget, DoD Desk Officer, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, with a copy to the Defense Logistics Agency, ATTN: J71, Suite 3122, 8725 John Kingman Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060. Comments can be received from 30 to 60 days after the date of this notice, but comments to OMB will be most useful if received by OMB within 30 days after the date of this notice.
You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:
*
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Logistics Agency, ATTN: J71, Suite 3122, 8725 John Kingman Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060. POC is Christine Bond Jawish, 703-767-8451.
It has been certified that this rule does not have federalism implications, as set forth in Executive Order 13132. This rule does not have substantial direct effects on:
(1) The States;
(2) The relationship between the National Government and the States; or
(3) The distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
Contract delivery receipt process.
Accordingly, title 48 CFR Chapter 54, is proposed to be amended to add part 5432 to read as follows:
41 U.S.C. 401
(a)
(ii) TPD is not a substitute for any other receipt and acceptance documentation, such as the material receipt acknowledgement (MRA) or the Wide Area Workflow receiving report (RR) required from the DoD customer, but is a supplement to such documentation, and may be used to document receipt and as the basis for Government acceptance to pay the contractor's invoice in the absence of an MRA or RR. The exceptions to the requirement for contractors to submit payment requests and receiving reports in electronic form are listed at DFARS 232.7002, to include cases in which DoD is unable to receive payment requests or provide acceptance in electronic form.
(2) [Reserved].
(b)
(ii) If the customer has submitted a supply discrepancy report (SDR) or MRA discrepancy indicator, payment shall not be made until the discrepancy is resolved. If payment is made before the purchasing organization receives the SDR or MRA discrepancy indicator, the Government may pursue appropriate remedies, including those provided by § 5432.2.
(2) Reserved.
(c)
(A) DCMA Inspection and Acceptance
(B) Shipments to overseas destinations or to containerization consolidation points; and
(C) Acquisitions conducted under the Subsistence Total Order and Receipt Electronic System (STORES), Defense Medical Logistics Standard Support (DMLSS), Industrial Prime Vendor (IPV), or Integrated Logistics Partner (ILP) programs.
(ii) Transporter proof of delivery procedural guidance: TPD will normally be requested from a contractor only when it is known or appears likely, based on current or past experience, that a customer receiving supplies under the applicable contract or order will not provide material receipt acknowledgement (MRA) in a timely manner so as to support payment in accordance with Prompt Payment requirements. The customer is still required to submit the MRA, and supply chains shall continue to ensure that follow up action is taken by appropriate personnel to obtain the MRA from the customer when it is not provided.
(2) Reserved.
Insert the Transporter Proof of Delivery clause in this section, when applicable in accordance with § 5432.1(a)(1)(i) and when either the clause at 48 CFR 52.232-25, Prompt Payment, or the clause at 48 CFR 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions—Commercial Items, is used.
(a)
(b) When this clause is included in the contract or order, the Government may use TPD, in combination with adequate Contractor documentation cross-referencing the TPD to the specific supplies provided, as a basis for accepting the supplies. TPD with adequate supporting documentation satisfies the receipt report requirement and in non-fast payment contracts and orders allows the Government to initiate the payment process, if all other applicable payment conditions are satisfied.
(c) To facilitate the payment process, the Government may initiate a request for the Contractor to provide TPD. The Contractor shall provide TPD upon request by the Government. The Contractor shall provide TPD within 10 calendar days following request. The request and response will be made using electronic mail. The Contractor shall immediately notify the Government if TPD is not available. The TPD documentation shall be a clear, readable, and accurate copy of the original and be provided in standard Portable Document File (PDF) or Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) digital format, and must include the following:
(1) Government customer signature and, if practicable, clearly state the name of the Government customer who signed;
(2) Contract number and, if applicable, order number;
(3) Contract line item number(s) (CLIN(s));
(4) Quantity of items;
(5) National stock number (NSN);
(6) Delivery date;
(7) Recipient organization's name and address; and
(8) Location where the carrier made delivery (activity name, building number, city, state).
(d) In addition to the above information which is required, the TPD should contain as much of the following information as possible:
(1) Unit price;
(2) Extended Price;
(3) Receiving activity Department of Defense activity address code (DoDAAC)
(4) Requisition document number (and suffix, when applicable);
(5) Shipment number; and,
(6) Invoice number.
(e) Responsibility for supplies for which TPD is requested.
(1) Title to the supplies passes to the Government when the Government accepts the supplies.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of the contract, order, or blanket purchase agreement, the Contractor shall:
(i) Assume all responsibility and risk of loss for supplies not received at destination, damaged in transit, or not conforming to purchase requirements; and
(ii) Replace, repair, or correct those supplies promptly at the Contractor's expense, if instructed to do so by the Contracting Officer within 180 days from the date title to the supplies vests in the Government.
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on the proposed collection. This is a revision of a currently approved collection. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 provides the Secretary of Agriculture with the authority to develop a Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (D-SNAP) to address the needs of families temporarily in need of food assistance after a disaster. The information collection under this notice is required for the establishment and operation of a D-SNAP.
Written comments must be received on or before July 28, 2015.
Comments are invited 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 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 respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments may be sent to Sasha Gersten-Paal, Chief, Certification Policy Branch, Program Development Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 812, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be faxed to the attention of Ms. Gersten-Paal at (703) 305-2507 or via email to
Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to
All written comments will be open for public inspection at the office of FNS during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday) located at 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 800, Alexandria, Virginia, 22302.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information should be directed to Ms. Gersten-Paal at (703) 305-2507.
D-SNAP is a program that is separate from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and is conducted for a specific period of time. In order for a State to request to operate a D-SNAP, an affected area in the State must have received a Presidential declaration of “Major Disaster” with Individual Assistance. Once the declaration is in place, the State submits a request to operate a D-SNAP to FNS. FNS reviews the request to ensure that all the necessary requirements to conduct D-SNAP are met. Upon approval of a D-SNAP, FNS provides the State support in their D-SNAP efforts through policy guidance, training and technical assistance. Since each disaster demands a separate D-SNAP program, a State can submit multiple requests to FNS to operate multiple D-SNAPs.
The number of disasters that occur annually and the average number of households affected by the disasters cannot be predicted. During the period from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2014, the number of State requests for disaster programs ranged from 3 to 23 requests per year. The information collection under this reporting burden is limited to the burden experienced by State agencies in preparing and submitting their requests to operate D-SNAPs to FNS. FNS does not have a standardized form for D-SNAP requests at this time, due to the dynamic nature of emergency situations and the need to quickly respond to the requesting State agency; therefore, State agencies are required to submit their request to operate D-SNAPs to FNS via email or fax. The burden associated with the actual operation of D-SNAPs, including the processing of applications from households affected by disasters, is included under OMB information collection 0584-0064, titled `SNAP Forms: Applications, Periodic Reporting, Notices' (expiration date 04/30/2016), which includes all information collection activities associated with the certification of participating and applicant households. The D-SNAP participation and issuance form FNS-292-B, Report of Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Benefit Issuance, is covered under the OMB information collection 0584-0037 (expiration date: 08/31/2017) and will not be reflected in this submission.
FNS estimates that approximately 10 hours of State personnel time are required to prepare D-SNAP application requests. The burden associated with preparing requests to operate a D-SNAP does not vary significantly from disaster to disaster and is relatively independent of the scope of the disaster. Major disasters require little additional
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to document the analysis and disclose the environmental impacts of proposed land management activities and corresponding alternatives within the Townsend Project. The purpose of the Townsend Project is to implement land management activities that are consistent with direction in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest 2004 Land and Resources Management Plan (forest plan) and respond to the specific needs identified in the project area. The project-specific needs include: species diversity, wildlife habitat, stream bank improvement, forest age, forest composition, and stocking.
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by June 29, 2015 in order to have standing for objection. The draft environmental impact statement is expected on January 2016 and the final environmental impact statement is expected on April 2016.
Send written comments to Marilee Houtler, ATTN: Townsend Project, Lakewood-Laona Ranger District, 15085 State Road 32, Lakewood, WI 54138. Comments may also be sent via email to
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for the proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the Agency with the ability to provide the respondent with subsequent environmental documents.
Marilee Houtler, NEPA Coordinator at the above address or by phone at 715-276-6333.
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
The infromation presented in this notice is included to help the reviewer determine if they are interested in or potentially affected by the proposed land management activities. The infromation presented in the notice is summarized. Those who wish to provide comments or are otherwise interested in or affected by the projects are encouraged to obtain additional infromation from the contact listed above.
The current conditions of many stands in the project area varies from desired conditions in the forest plan. Our information shows some of the more notable gaps between the existing and desired conditions by management area. Of primary importance is the need for change in: wildlife habitat, stream improvement, species age structure, species composition, and stocking densities.
Projected project implementation would be fall 2016. The Townsend Project is located on National Forest System lands, administered by the Lakewood-Laona Ranger District, west of Townsend. The legal description of the project is Townships 32-34 North and Ranges 14 and 15 East. The Forest Service proposes to improve wildlife habitat, remove short-lived species along streams, and use timber harvest (selection, thin, clearcut, and shelterwood) to move the area toward the desired conditions.
The responsible official for this project is Lakewood-Laona Distict Ranger, Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest.
Decision making will be limited to specific activities relating to the proposed actions. The primary decision to be made will be whether or not to implement the proposed action, no action, another alternative, or parts of alternatives that respond to the projects purpose and need. This decision would be documented in a record of decision.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the EIS. The 45 day comment period will start after the publication in the
It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. However, comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered.
National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to request revision and extension of a currently approved information collection, the Floriculture Survey. Revision to burden hours will be needed due to changes in the size of the target population, sampling design, and/or questionnaire length.
Comments on this notice must be received by July 28, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-0093, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
R. Renee Picanso, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720-4333. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from David Hancock, NASS-OMB Clearance Officer, at (202) 690-2388 or at
NASS also complies with OMB Implementation Guidance, “Implementation Guidance for Title V of the E-Government Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA),”
All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at (5 CFR part 1320), this notice announces the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) intention to request approval for an extension of the currently approved information collection for the NIFA proposal review process.
Written comments on this notice must be received by July 28, 2015, to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Written comments concerning this notice and requests for copies of the information collection may be submitted by any of the following methods: Email:
Robert Martin, eGovernment Program Leader; Email:
Proposals submitted to NIFA undergo a programmatic evaluation to determine worthiness of Federal support. The evaluations consist of a peer panel review and may also entail an assessment by Federal employees and electronically submitted (ad-hoc) reviews in the Peer Review System.
Given the highly technical nature of many of these proposals, the quality of the peer review greatly depends on the appropriate matching of the subject matter of the proposal with the technical expertise of the potential reviewer. In order to obtain this information, an electronic questionnaire is used to collect information about potential panel and ad-hoc reviewers. If the reviewer is already in our database, the questionnaire asks potential reviewers to update their basic biographical information including address, contact information, professional expertise, and their availability to review for NIFA in the future. If the reviewer is new they are prompted to complete the questionnaire. The information collected from reviewers has been invaluable in the NIFA review process, which has been recognized by the grantee and grantor community for its quality.
The applications and associated materials made available to reviewers, as well as the discussions that take place during panel review meetings are strictly confidential and are not to be disclosed to or discussed with anyone who has not been officially designated to participate in the review process. While each panelist certifies at the time of preparing a review they do not have a conflict-of-interest with a particular application and will maintain its confidentiality in the Peer Review System, a certification of their intent at the time of the panel review proceedings is collected to emphasize and reinforce confidentiality not only of applications and reviews but also panel discussions. On the Conflict-of-Interest and Confidentiality Certification Form, the panelist affirms they understand the conflict-of-interest guidelines and will not be involved in the review of the application(s) where a conflict exists. The panelist also affirms their intent to maintain the confidentiality of the panel process and not disclose to another individual any information related to the peer review or use any information for personal benefit.
Comments are invited on: (a) 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) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information 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.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request to OMB for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Nevada Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held on Friday, June 19, 2015, for the purpose of discussing and voting upon the committee report on the militarization of police. The meeting will be held at Nevada Department of Employment Training and Rehabilitation (NDETR), 2800 East St. Louis Ave., Las Vegas, NV 89104. A second videoconference location for the meeting is NDETR, 1325 Corporate Blvd., Reno, NV 89502. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 1:30 p.m. and adjourn at approximately 3:00 p.m.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments. The comments must be received in the Western Regional Office of the Commission by July 17, 2015. The address is Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 N. Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Persons wishing to email their comments may do so by sending them to Angelica Trevino, Civil Rights Analyst, Western Regional Office, at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
Friday, June 19, 2015.
NDETR, 2800 East St. Louis Ave., Las Vegas, NV 89104.
Peter Minarik, DFO, at (213) 894-3437 or
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).
This notice supplements FR Doc. 2015-09741 with new information, and extends the comment period to June 28, 2015.
The American Community Survey (ACS) is one of the Department of Commerce's most valuable data products, used extensively by businesses, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), local governments, and many federal agencies. In conducting this survey, the Census Bureau's top priority is respecting the time and privacy of the people providing information while preserving its value to the public. The 2016 survey content changes are the initial step in a multi-faceted approach to reducing respondent burden. The Census Bureau is currently carrying out this program of research, which includes several components as discussed briefly below.
One of the areas with strong potential to reduce respondent burden is to reuse information already supplied to the federal government in lieu of directly collecting it again through particular questions on the ACS. The Census Bureau is conducting groundbreaking work aimed at understanding the extent to which existing government data can reduce redundancy and improve efficiency. The tests we are conducting in the next two years will tell us whether existing government records can provide substitute data for households that have not responded to the ACS.
In addition, we continue to look into the possibility of asking some questions less often beginning with initial efforts on the marital history series of questions. For example, asking a question every other year, every third year, or asking a question of a subset of the respondents each year. We also want to examine ways we can better phrase our questions to reduce respondent concern, especially for those who may be sensitive to providing information.
The outcome of these future steps will be a more efficient survey that minimizes respondent burden while continuing to provide quality data products for the nation. We expect to make great progress during fiscal 2015 on this front, and will be reporting our progress to the Secretary of Commerce at the end of the fiscal year.
Since the founding of the nation, the U.S. Census has mediated between the demands of a growing country for information about its economy and people, and the people's privacy and respondent burden. Beginning with the 1810 Census, Congress added questions to support a range of public concerns and uses, and over the course of a century questions were added about
The ACS, launched in 2005, is the current embodiment of the long form of the census, and is asked each year of a sample of the U.S. population in order to provide current data needed more often than once every ten years. In December of 2010, five years after its launch, the ACS program accomplished its primary objective with the release of its first set of estimates for every area of the United States. The Census Bureau concluded it was an appropriate time to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the ACS program. This program assessment focused on strengthening programmatic, technical, and methodological aspects of the survey to assure that the Census Bureau conducts the ACS efficiently and effectively.
In August 2012, the OMB and the Census Bureau chartered the Interagency Council on Statistical Policy (ICSP) Subcommittee on the ACS to “provide advice to the Director of the Census Bureau and the Chief Statistician at OMB on how the ACS can best fulfill its role in the portfolio of Federal household surveys and provide the most useful information with the least amount of burden.” The Subcommittee charter also states that the Subcommittee would be expected to “conduct regular, periodic reviews of the ACS content. . .designed to ensure that there is clear and specific authority and justification for each question to be on the ACS, the ACS is the appropriate vehicle for collecting the information, respondent burden is being minimized, and the quality of the data from ACS is appropriate for its intended use.”
The formation of the ICSP Subcommittee on the ACS and the aforementioned assessment of the ACS program also provided an opportunity to examine and confirm the value of each question on the ACS, which resulted in the 2014 ACS Content Review. This review, which was an initial step in a multi-faceted approach of a much larger content review process, included examination of all 72 questions contained on the 2014 ACS questionnaire, including 24 housing-related questions and 48 person-related questions.
The Census Bureau proposed the two analysis factors—benefit as defined by the level of usefulness and cost as defined by the level of respondent burden or difficulty in obtaining the data, which were accepted by the ICSP Subcommittee. Based on a methodology pre-defined by the Census Bureau with the input and concurrence of the ICSP Subcommittee on the ACS, each question received a total number of points between 0 and 100 based on its benefits, and 0 and 100 points based on its costs. These points were then used as the basis for creating four categories: High Benefit and Low Cost; High Benefit and High Cost; Low Benefit and Low Cost; or Low Benefit and High Cost. For this analysis, any question that was designated as either Low Benefit and Low Cost or Low Benefit and High Cost and was NOT designated as Mandatory (
•
•
•
Based on the analysis, the following questions were initially proposed for removal:
For reports that provide a full description of the overall 2014 ACS Content Review methods and results, see “Final Report—American Community Survey FY14 Content Review Results” and additional reports about the 2014 ACS Content Review available at
Regarding the business/medical office on property question, the Census Bureau received 41 comments from researchers, and individuals. Most of these comments came from researchers who felt that the Census Bureau should keep all of the proposed questions in order to keep the survey content consistent over time, or felt that modifications to the question could potentially make it more useful. Housing Question No. 6—Business/Medical Office on Property is currently not published by the Census Bureau in any data tables. The only known use of the question is to produce a variable for the Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS), a recode for the Specified Owner (SVAL) variable that allows users to compare other datasets. The Content Review did not reveal any uses by federal agencies, and the comments to the
Regarding the field of degree question, the Census Bureau received 625 comments from researchers, professors and administrators at many universities, professional associations that represent science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) careers and industries, members of Congress, the National Science Foundation, and many individuals interested in retaining this question. A number of commenters (92) cited the importance of these estimates for research that analyzes the effect of field of degree choice on economic outcomes, including earnings, education, occupation, industry, and employment. University administrators (37) commented that this information allows for analysis of postsecondary outcomes, and allows them to benchmark their graduates' relative success in different fields as well as to plan degree offerings. While some commenters used the estimates to understand fields such as humanities or philosophy (56), the majority of these comments (125) addressed the value of knowing about the outcomes of people who pursued degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. These commenters felt that knowing more about the people currently earning STEM degrees and the
The initial analysis of Person Question No. 12—Undergraduate Field of Degree did not uncover any evidence that the question was Mandatory or Required. However, comments to the
Additionally, many comments also indicated uses of this question to understand the economic outcomes of college graduates at local geographic levels, especially those with STEM degrees. These commenters included professional, academic, congressional, and policy-making stakeholders who expressed concerns that the absence of statistical information about STEM degrees would harm the ability to understand characteristics of small populations attaining STEM degrees. Given the importance of this small population group to the economy, the federal statistical system and the nation, bolstered by the new knowledge of historical precedent brought to light by commenters to the
Regarding the marital history questions, the Census Bureau received 1,361 comments from researchers and professors, professional associations that represent marriage and family therapists, the Social Security Administration (SSA), and many individuals interested in retaining these questions. SSA commented that it uses the marital history questions to estimate future populations by marital status as part of the Board of Trustees annual report on the actuarial status (including future income and disbursements) of the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) also uses these questions to distinguish households in which a grandparent has primary responsibility for a grandchild or grandchildren, as well as to provide family formation and stability measures for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
The focus of the proposed elimination is on the marital history questions only with no change to collection of marital status. Over 400 additional comments to the
More than 100 supporters of retaining the marital history questions mentioned their utility for research into marital status changes over time and they correctly noted that there is currently no other national source of the marital history information. As a result, many commenters felt they would not be able to compare marriage characteristics and patterns with other nations in the same depth that is possible today. Similarly, without these questions, the commenters felt that the analysis of changes in marriage events (especially those due to changing societal values and pressures or policy changes) would be less robust. In particular, comments focused on 6 research areas that would be more difficult to analyze without the marital history questions:
Because the initial analysis of Person Question Nos. 21-23 on marital history did not uncover any evidence that data from these questions were “Required” for federal use at sub-state geographies, those questions received a lower benefit score than many other ACS questions. However, in deference to the very large number (1,367) of comments received on the Census Bureau proposal to eliminate those questions, the Census Bureau plans to retain those questions on the 2016 ACS.
The Census Bureau takes very seriously respondent concerns and recognizes that the Content Review and the resulting, proposed question changes discussed above are only initial steps to addressing them. The Census Bureau has implemented an extensive action plan on addressing respondent burden and concerns. The work completed, and the comments received, on the 2014 Content Review provide a foundation for ongoing and future efforts to reduce burden and concerns. In addition to the immediate content changes (proposed above), the Census Bureau is also currently testing the language on the survey materials that may cause concern such as reminding people that their responses are required by law. In order to be responsive to these concerns about the prominence of the mandatory message on the envelopes, we are conducting research with a subset of ACS respondents in May 2015. Over the summer, we will work with external methodological experts to test other revisions of the ACS mail materials to check respondent perceptions of the softened references to the mandatory nature of participation in the ACS. The preliminary results of those tests will be available in the fall, and the Census Bureau will make changes to the 2016 ACS mail materials based on those results.
Concurrently we also are identifying additional questions that we may only need to ask intermittently, rather than each month or year. The current ACS sample design asks all of the survey questions from all selected households in order to produce estimates each year for small geographies and small populations. However, during the Content Review we learned about over 300 data needs that federal agencies require to implement their missions. We see several potential opportunities to either include some questions periodically, or ask a smaller subset of ACS respondents in cases where those agencies do not need certain data annually. The Census Bureau plans to engage the federal agencies and external experts on this topic during 2015. In addition, we need to assess the operational and statistical issues associated with alternate designs. The alternate designs will result in a
We are also conducting research on substituting the direct collection of information with the use of information already provided to the government. It is possible that the Census Bureau could use administrative records from federal and commercial sources in lieu of asking particular questions on the ACS.
Lastly, we are examining our approaches to field collection to reduce the number of in-person contact attempts while preserving data quality. For example, based on research conducted in 2012, we implemented changes in 2013 which led to an estimated reduction of approximately 1.2 million call attempts per year, while sustaining the 97 percent response rate for the survey overall. For the person visit operation, we are researching a reduction in the number of contact attempts. We plan to field test this change in August 2015. If successful we would implement nationwide in spring 2016.
We will continue to look for other opportunities to reduce respondent burden while maintaining survey quality. Taken together, these measures will make a significant impact on reducing respondent burden in the ACS. In fact, as we have been accelerating our research program in parallel with the content review, we are proposing several additional immediate changes to the 2016 ACS.
In early 2013 the Census Bureau began to reach out to Federal agency stakeholders through the forum provided by the OMB Interagency Committee for the ACS to identify possible question changes to be considered for the 2016 ACS Content Test. The ICSP Subcommittee on the ACS conducted an initial review of the proposals received from these Federal agencies, and identified a set of topics that would be approved for the formation of topical subcommittees. These topical subcommittees worked with the Census Bureau to develop proposed wording that was evaluated through multiple rounds of cognitive testing in 2014 and 2015 to refine the proposed question wording changes.
During the course of the preparations for the 2016 ACS Content Test, attention was given to the computer usage and Internet series of questions (questions 9 through 11 on the ACS-1(HU) questionnaire). When this series of questions was added to the production ACS questionnaire in 2013, it was clear that the quickly evolving nature of the types of computing devices available and the ways individuals access the Internet would cause this series of questions to quickly become out-of-date. Cognitive testing of these questions in 2014 brought to light difficulties respondents face when answering the current versions of these questions that were corroborated by the metrics collected during the ACS Content Review. Specifically, technical terms and types of devices and Internet services referenced in the current questions are not easily reconciled with the devices and Internet services used by households today. Additionally, there is evidence in the production data being collected that respondents are misreporting their usage of tablets, since there is not a clear category that references tablet computers. Proposed changes to these questions to bring the wording more in sync with current devices and Internet services were shown to be effectively understood during the cognitive testing process. Therefore, in order to improve the quality of the ACS data, and to reduce the difficulty respondents experience when answering these questions, the Census Bureau is proposing revising these questions. Given the timing of the receipt of the results of cognitive testing, the proposal to revise these questions in the 2016 ACS was not included in the October 31st notice in the
In order to ensure that question changes are effective at collecting high quality data, the current policy requires that proposed revisions to questions must first be cognitively tested, and then, if successful, the results of the cognitive testing will be used as input to a field test that utilizes multiple ACS modes of collection. However, the current concerns with the computer use and Internet questions suggest the need in some instances for the ACS program to be more nimble in making changes than our current process for cognitive and field testing will allow. Therefore, we are evaluating on a pilot basis incorporating the following criteria into the pretesting requirements of the ICSP Subcommittee on the ACS to determine when to implement changes without field testing:
• The external environment related to the topic being measured has changed in a way that there is evidence of significant measurement error in the absence of a question change.
• Cognitive testing has been conducted on versions of the question accounting for multiple modes of administration (such as self-response and interviewer-administered) and the results have led to clear recommendations on the specific changes to make.
• There is evidence that implementing changes to the production versions of the question should be done on a timeline that makes field testing unfeasible, OR the Census Bureau has not received sufficient funding to conduct field testing.
Traditionally the means of determining substandard housing has involved identifying housing that lacks complete plumbing facilities or complete kitchen facilities. Until 2008, the Census Bureau asked one question to determine complete plumbing facilities, “Does the house, apartment or mobile home have COMPLETE plumbing facilities; that is, (1) hot and cold running water, (2) flush toilet, and (3) bathtub or shower?” Similarly, the Census Bureau used one question to determine complete kitchen facilities (sink with a faucet, stove or range, and a refrigerator). In 2008, in conjunction with our stakeholders, we broke the plumbing and kitchen facilities questions into six sub-parts in order ask about each component separately. Having data available for each sub-part has enabled us to better understand the impact of asking each one, including the flush toilet component. As we have accelerated our research into this topic, we have learned that there are very few instances where flush toilets alone determine the existence of substandard housing. After consultation with some of our key stakeholders, the Census Bureau believes that the flush toilet question places unnecessary burden on the American public relative to the value of the information gained from it, and recommends that it be removed in the 2016 ACS, though we will continue to work with stakeholders to explore how this information can be collected apart from the ACS.
Based on the results of testing conducted in 2015, the Census Bureau is proposing to modify the mail out
For households eligible to receive survey materials by mail, the first contact includes a letter and instruction card explaining how to complete the survey online. Also included are a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) brochure and a brochure that provides basic information about the survey in English, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Korean, and provides a phone number to call for assistance in each language. The instruction card provides the information on how to respond in English and Spanish. The letter explains that if the respondent is unable to complete the survey online, a paper questionnaire will be sent later. The Internet version of the questionnaire is available in English and Spanish and includes questions about the housing unit and the people living in the housing unit. The Internet questionnaire has space to collect detailed information for twenty people in the household.
The second mailing is a letter that reminds respondents to complete the survey online, thanks them if they have already done so, and informs them that a paper form will be sent later if we do not receive their response. This letter includes clear instructions to log in, including an explicit reference to the user identification number.
In a third mailing, the ACS housing unit questionnaire package is sent only to those sample addresses that have not completed the online questionnaire within two weeks. The content includes a follow up letter, a paper copy of the questionnaire, an instruction guide for completing the paper form, an instruction card for completing the survey online, a FAQ brochure, and a return envelope. The cover letter with this questionnaire package reminds the household of the importance of the ACS, and asks them to respond soon either by completing the survey online or by returning a completed paper questionnaire.
The fourth mailing is a postcard that reminds respondents that “now is the time to complete the survey,” informs them that an interviewer may contact them if they do not complete the survey, and reminds them of the importance of the ACS.
A fifth mailing is sent to respondents who have not completed the survey within five weeks and are not eligible for telephone follow-up because we do not have a telephone number for the household. This postcard reminds these respondents to return their questionnaires and thanks them if they have already done so.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0336, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
The Clinton County Area Development Corporation, grantee of FTZ 54, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Swarovski Lighting, Ltd. (Swarovski), located in Plattsburgh, New York. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on May 15, 2015.
The Swarovski facility is located within Site 1 of FTZ 54. The facility is used to make custom lighting fixtures and related parts. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and 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 Swarovski from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Swarovski would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to wall sconces; chandeliers; suspended chandeliers; pendant lamps; electric household lamps; electric table lamps; electric candelabras; electric floor standing lamps; wall mount light fixtures; high intensity discharge lamp fixtures; halogen lamp fixtures; candle candelabras; candle lamp fixtures; light-emitting diode (LED) illuminated paneling; LED illuminated wall mounts; lamp illuminated paneling; lamp illuminated wall mounts; lighted signs; fixture extensions; and, parts of lamps—scrolls, arms, covers, extenders, sconce plates, brass bodies, bases, finials, bobeches, connectors, hangers, cups, rings, and shafts (duty rates range from 3.9% to 6%) for the foreign status inputs noted below. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The components and materials sourced from abroad include: Lacquer; UV-curing glues; anaerobic sealants; plastic crates/cavity trays/bags/o-rings/molded washers/labels; plywood insert packing materials; packing material boxes; brown paper; labels, brown kraft paper; corrugated cardboard strips; reinforced tape; gift bags; cardboard boxes; pocket folders; paperboard; marketing brochures; booklets; instruction manuals/sheets; decals; window stickers; printed cards; consumer brochures; product catalogs; advertising cards; pricelists; tags for color samples; netting; glass mirrors; amethyst balls and drops; fluorite balls and drops; rose quartz drops; rock crystal balls, bases, bobeches, cubes, cylinders, drops, kites, octagons, rosettes, sink bowls, spikes and square bases; smokey quartz pears; gold powder; steel flat bars; hex nuts; steel thumbnuts; brass ball nuts, brass hex nuts; brass hickeys; glass drills; instructional DVDs; dimmer switches; electrical plugs; protection caps; silicon sleeves; chrome connection jacks/connection rings; wire nuts; electrical harness assemblies; porcelain lampholders; lampholders with brackets; rivet sockets; ceramic sockets; stainless steel sockets; socket holders; lampholder connectors; monorail connectors; power adapters; terminal blocks; connection boxes; junction boxes; cable lug connectors; cable clutches; ring wire locking with screw; brackets for European arm sockets; halogen lamps; incandescent lamps;
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 8, 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 Diane Finver at
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Findlay Hancock County Chamber of Commerce, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 151, requesting authority to reorganize the zone to expand its service area under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the FTZ Board (15 CFR Sec. 400.2(c)). The ASF is an option for grantees for the establishment or reorganization of zones and can permit significantly greater flexibility in the designation of new subzones or “usage-driven” FTZ sites for operators/users located within a grantee's “service area” in the context of the FTZ Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for a zone. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on May 21, 2015.
FTZ 151 was approved by the Board on July 6, 1988 (Board Order 389, 53 FR 27058, 7/18/1988) and reorganized under the ASF on August 29, 2012 (Board Order 1855, 77 FR 55182-55183, 9/7/2012). The zone currently has a service area that includes Hardin, Putnam, Seneca, Allen and Hancock Counties, Ohio.
The applicant is now requesting authority to expand the service area of the zone to include Van Wert County, as described in the application. If approved, the grantee would be able to serve sites throughout the expanded service area based on companies' needs for FTZ designation. The proposed expanded service area is adjacent to the Toledo-Sandusky Customs and Border Protection Port of Entry
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the FTZ Board.
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 28, 2015. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to August 12, 2015.
A copy of the application 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
On January 20, 2015, CNH Industrial America, LLC, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board for its facility within Subzone 41I, in Racine, Wisconsin.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Panel Review Precluded.
Notice of the Department of Commerce's final determination regarding steel concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico was published in the
Paul E. Morris, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 2061, Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings and hearings.
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its Hawaii Archipelago Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) Advisory Panels (AP) to discuss and make recommendations on fishery management issues in the Western Pacific Region.
The Hawaii Archipelago FEP AP will meet on Friday, June 12, 2015, between 12 noon and 1:30 p.m.
All meetings will be held by teleconference and webconference. The teleconference will be conducted by telephone and by web. The teleconference numbers are: U.S. toll-free: 1-888-482-3560 or International Access: +1 647 723-3959, and Access Code: 5228220; The webconference can be accessed at
Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; telephone: (808) 522-8220.
Public comment periods will be provided in the agenda. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.
1. Welcome and Introductions
2. Review and Approval of the Agenda
3. Issues to be discussed at 163rd Council Meeting
A. Upcoming Council Action Items
i. Cooperative Research Priorities
ii. Five-year Research Priorities
iii. Specification of Annual Catch Limits for Main Hawaiian Islands Deep-seven Bottomfish
B. Hawaii Archipelago FEP Community Activities
4. Hawaii Archipelago FEP Issues
5. Public Comment
6. Discussion and Recommendations
7. Other Business
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 43 assessment webinar for Gulf of Mexico Gray Triggerfish.
The SEDAR assessment of the Gulf of Mexico Gray Triggerfish will consist of one in-person workshop and a series of webinars. See
The SEDAR Assessment webinar II will be held June 15, 2015 from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. Eastern Time. The established time may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the assessment process. Such adjustments may result in the meeting being extended from, or completed prior to the time established by this notice.
The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (see
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; phone: (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for
The items of discussion in the Assessment Process webinars are as follows:
1. Using datasets and initial assessment analysis recommended from the In-person Workshop, panelists will employ assessment models to evaluate stock status, estimate population benchmarks and management criteria, and project future conditions.
2. Panelists will recommend the most appropriate methods and configurations for determining stock status and estimating population parameters.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
The National Civilian Community Corps Advisory Board gives notice of the following meeting:
Thursday, June 25, 2015, 2 p.m.-3 p.m. (CT).
NCCC Campus located at 1004 G Ave., Vinton, IA 52349.
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 800-369-1873 conference call access code number 9921244. Pete McRoberts will be the lead on the call. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Corporation will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Replays are generally available one hour after a call ends. The toll-free phone number for the replay is 866-421-5878, replay passcode 95221. The end replay date: July 29, 2015, 11:59 p.m. (CT).
Open.
Anyone who needs an interpreter or other accommodations should notify the Corporation's contact person by 5 p.m. Friday, June 19, 2015.
Erma Hodge, NCCC, Corporation for National and Community Service, 9th Floor, Room 9802B, 1201 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20525. Phone 202-606-6696. Fax 202-606-3459. TTY: 800-833-3722. Email address:
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of availability.
The Department of the Army and Fort Carson announce the decision to conduct training using new tactics, equipment, infrastructure improvements, and management methods at Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS), CO. The action was the preferred alternative identified in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for proposed training and operations at PCMS. PCMS is the maneuver site for Fort Carson and is located near Trinidad, CO, approximately 150 miles southeast of Fort Carson. The Record of Decision (ROD) explains the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with the selected action, which is to conduct realistic, coordinated, large-scale training that integrates the ground and air resources of Fort Carson's mechanized, infantry, support, and combat aviation units. The selected alternative provides the proper balance of initiatives for the protection of environmental and mission-essential actions. The ROD also adopts mitigation that will reduce or eliminate adverse impacts.
The selected action will establish new brigade-level training intensity measures, update brigade training and equipment requirements, enable the Stryker family of vehicles to train at PCMS, and add enhanced readiness training, to include new activities and infrastructure at PCMS. The action does not include, nor would it require, land expansion of PCMS.
The ROD can be obtained at
The Fort Carson Public Affairs Office at (719) 526-7525, Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. MST; or by email to:
The Final EIS examined the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts from implementing the proposed establishment and use of brigade-level training intensity measures, as well as the proposed readiness training using new tactics, equipment, and infrastructure improvements at PCMS. The selected action best meets the Army's need to conduct realistic and coordinated large-scale training that integrates the ground and air resources of assigned and visiting units including mechanized, infantry, support, and combat aviation assets.
The selected action establishes new brigade-level training intensity measures and limits such training to 4.7 months per year to allow for sufficient time for training land to sustainably recover from training events. The action updates brigade training period equipment compositions and training methods, and enables the Stryker family of vehicles to train at PCMS. The action also introduces new training activities and training infrastructure changes at PCMS. Training activities include electronic jamming systems, laser target sighting, tactical demolition, unmanned and unarmed aerial reconnaissance systems, and light unmanned ground vehicle training. In terms of training infrastructure, PCMS will establish two new drop-zones, and restricted airspace directly over PCMS for use during periods when training activity poses a hazard to non-participating aircraft. Soldier training will be entirely within the existing boundaries of PCMS, except for limited air and convoy operations. The decision does not include, nor would it require, any land expansion of PCMS. No additional land will be sought or acquired as a result of this action.
The ROD incorporates analysis contained in the Final EIS for PCMS training and operations, including comments provided during formal comment and review periods. The ROD also considered all comments and new reference citations provided during the waiting period, a period that was initiated when the Notice of Availability for the Final EIS was published in the
Implementation of this decision is expected to result in direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, to include potentially significant impacts to soils, vegetation, wildlife, and water resources. To minimize the potential adverse impacts from implementation of the preferred alternative, the Army will mitigate these effects through a variety of strategies, as described in the ROD.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice.
The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 29, 2015.
a. DFARS 245.302(1)(i): DFARS 245.302 concerns contracts with foreign governments or international organizations. Paragraph (1)(i) requires contractors to request and obtain contracting officer approval before using Government property on work for foreign governments and international organizations.
b. DFARS 245.604-3(b) and (d): DFARS 245.604-3 concerns the sale of surplus Government property. Under paragraph (b), a contractor may be directed by the plant clearance officer to issue informal invitations for bids. Under paragraph (d), a contractor may be authorized by the plant clearance officer to purchase or retain Government property at less than cost if the plant clearance officer determines this method is essential for expeditious plant clearance.
c. DFARS 252.245-7003: This clause entitled, Contractor Property Management System Administration, and DFARS 245.105, Contractor's Property Management System Compliance, address the requirement for contractors to respond in writing to initial and final determinations from the administrative contracting officer that identifies deficiencies in the contractor's property management system. The burden for this reporting requirement was previously approved under OMB 0704-0480 and is being incorporated into 0704-0246 in order to consolidate all DFARS part 245 requirements under one OMB clearance.
d. DD Form 1348-1A, DoD Single Line Item Release/Receipt Document, is prescribed at DFARS 245.7001-3 and the form is used when authorized by the plant clearance officer.
e. DD Form 1639, Scrap Warranty, is prescribed in the clause at DFARS 252.245-7004, Reporting, Reutilization, and Disposal. When scrap is sold by the contractor, after Government approval, the purchaser of the scrap material(s) may be required to certify, by signature on the DD Form 1639, that (i) the purchased material will be used only as scrap and (ii), if sold by the purchaser, the purchaser will obtain an identical warranty from the individual buying the scrap from the initial purchaser. The warranty contained in the DD Form 1639 expires by its terms five years from the date of the sale.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. 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:
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at: Publication Collections Program, WHS/ESD Information Management Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Department of Defense.
Notice of amendments to the comprehensive demonstration project for all Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), including the tiered-model of ABA, for all TRICARE beneficiaries with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).
This notice is to advise interested parties of amendments to a Military Health System (MHS) demonstration project entitled Comprehensive Autism Care Demonstration (ACD). The purpose of the ACD is to further analyze and evaluate the appropriateness of the ABA delivery model under TRICARE in light of current and anticipated guidelines and best practices from the Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB) and other resources. The demonstration seeks to determine the appropriate provider qualifications for the proper diagnosis of ASD and the provision of ABA, refine the beneficiary cost-sharing requirements and provider reimbursement rates for the treatment of ASD, determine the appropriate patient safety and fraud prevention measures to implement regarding coverage of ABA for ASD, and develop more efficient and appropriate means of increasing access and delivering ABA services under TRICARE while creating a viable economic model and maintaining administrative simplicity.
First, the Department will align all ACD cost-shares with existing TRICARE Basic Program cost-share requirements under Standard/Extra and Prime to include allowing all ABA services under the ACD to accrue to the annual catastrophic cap. In addition, under the ACD the removal of the $36,000 annual limit on the amount the government may cost-share will continue. This will establish cost-share parity for the ACD by aligning it with existing TRICARE Basic program requirements generally, while remaining consistent with the requirement set forth in 32 CFR 199.4(f) that Active Duty benefits must be greater than benefits for non-Active Duty beneficiaries. As a result of this adjustment, all TRICARE beneficiaries receiving ABA for ASD under the ACD will now be protected from excessive out of pocket costs by the applicable catastrophic cap based on their sponsor's status and TRICARE plan under which covered. Second, the Department will also adjust all ABA reimbursement rates under the ACD by implementing adjustments based on Geographic Practice Cost Indices (GPCI). This will align the ACD reimbursement rates with the method used to determine many current CHAMPUS Maximum Allowable Charge (CMAC) rates (which are adjusted by local wage indices or geographic regions), and with the rates of other payers (which vary by location nationwide).
These changes will be effective October 1, 2015. The demonstration will continue through December 31, 2018.
Defense Health Agency, Health Plan Operations, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, Virginia 22042.
For questions or comments pertaining to this demonstration project, please contact Mr. Richard Hart at (703) 681-0047.
In June 2014, the Department published the ACD Notice in the
The Department conducted two ACD round table events for parents, advocacy groups, and other stakeholders on October 15, 2014 and December 3, 2014. The round tables were well attended and senior Department officials listened to concerns, answered questions, and took matters for further analysis and action. The Department received constructive feedback from these round tables and directly from interested stakeholders. The Department greatly appreciates the participation of all interested parties, and through this process has gained additional insights about how to design and implement an optimum care delivery and reimbursement system for beneficiaries diagnosed with ASD. Among a number of issues raised by stakeholders, two fundamental concerns emerged from the round table meetings that require immediate adjustments under the ACD. The first was that the beneficiary cost-sharing provisions under the ACD may have an adverse financial impact on beneficiaries as the one-on-one ABA therapy does not accrue to the catastrophic cap and thus may put ABA “out of reach” for some families. The second concern was that TRICARE reduced the reimbursement rate of $125/hour for ABA one-on-one therapy for Board Certified Behavior Analysts (BCBA) to $68/hour and this reportedly would cause providers to disengage TRICARE beneficiaries leading to decreased access. The Department will amend the ACD as outlined below in order to address these critical concerns.
Under the TRICARE program, cost-sharing by beneficiaries is required by law. It serves a number of purposes, including the means for obtaining a beneficiary's individual investment and commitment to the care sought, discouraging unnecessary use and overutilization of limited health care resources, and controlling overall TRICARE program costs to ensure sustainability of the benefits.
TRICARE has kept the various cost-shares related to ABA under the ACD the same as cost-shares and co-payments previously established under the Extended Care Health Option (ECHO) Autism Demonstration for ADFMs, the ABA Pilot for non-ADFMs, and ABA under the Basic Program. Under the ACD, all ABA services provided by a master's level or above Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA/BCBA-doctoral) (initial ABA assessment and treatment plan, ABA reassessments and treatment plan updates, direct one-on-one ABA, and parent/caregiver guidance in ABA) count toward the medical benefit catastrophic cap under the TRICARE Basic benefit. TRICARE covers 100% of charges for BCBA/BCBA-D services after a family's out-of-pocket costs reach an annual cap of $1,000.00 for Active Duty and TRICARE Reserve Select families, and $3,000.00 for retirees and their families.
However, tiered model ABA services provided by supervised Board Certified Assistant Behavior Analysts (BCaBAs) and Behavior Technicians (BTs) were based on tiered model ABA services previously provided under ECHO and the ABA Pilot. Many families receive a bulk of their care under the tiered service delivery model. These ABA services include supervision and intensive one-on-one ABA which may take place for many hours over an extended period of time, and do not currently apply towards the benefit catastrophic cap. For ABA provided by supervised BCaBAs and BTs, ADFMs pay the same monthly fee amount based on the sponsor's pay grade. Non-ADFMs pay the same out of pocket costs under the ACD (as they did under the ABA Pilot)—10% of the allowed charge for these services. Because these tiered model ABA services do not accrue to the annual catastrophic cap and out of pocket costs are not limited, there have been concerns expressed by beneficiaries and advocates that this policy may have an adverse financial impact on some families and put tiered model ABA services “out of reach” for those families.
To address this concern, the Department will apply all beneficiary cost-shares for ABA services under the ACD, including tiered model services (ABA provided by supervised BCaBAs and BTs), toward the catastrophic cap in the same manner as TRICARE Basic program benefits generally. The Department will implement this amendment to the beneficiary cost-share requirements by aligning cost-shares for all ABA services under the ACD with existing TRICARE program cost-sharing requirements. TRICARE Standard program deductible and cost share amounts are defined in 32 CFR 199.4. TRICARE Extra program deductible and cost-share amounts are defined in 32 CFR 199.17. TRICARE Prime program enrollment fees and copayments are defined under the Uniform Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) Benefit Schedule of Charges in 32 CFR 199.18. For information on fees for Prime enrollees choosing to receive care under the Point of Service (POS) option, refer to 32 CFR 199.17.
The ACD, as a demonstration, has flexibility in creating reimbursement methodologies, rather than being constrained by otherwise existing TRICARE program provider reimbursement requirements. The Defense Health Agency has broad discretion to evaluate alternative methods of payment and the appropriate reimbursement rates for ABA under the TRICARE demonstration authority. Although care available under the TRICARE program must generally be reimbursed using the reimbursement requirements of 10 U.S.C. 1079(h) and 32 CFR 199.14(j) to “to the extent practicable”, or (in the absence of a practicable Medicare rate) to use the prevailing rate, the ACD has no obligation to comply with this provision. As a result, the ABA reimbursement rates under the ACD may be established through different mechanisms.
When TRICARE reimburses individual professional providers, they are reimbursed at the rate known as the CHAMPUS Maximum Allowable Charge (CMAC). In general, the CMAC rates mirror the Medicare rates. The CMAC rates are adjusted by geographic locality by using the Medicare Geographic Price Cost Index (GPCI). The geographic locality adjustments are in place for approximately 70 areas in the United States.
With the publication of the ACD policy in September, 2014, the Department came under intense criticism from providers that the rate reduction for one-on-one ABA by BCBAs from $125 to $68 was too drastic and out of line with existing market rates. Some providers indicated that they would disengage TRICARE beneficiaries as a result of the proposed rate reduction. The Department responded by placing the rate reduction in abeyance pending a complete analysis of the ACD reimbursement rates by the RAND Corporation and further evaluation and a determination of appropriate rates by the Department.
Extensive analysis of ABA reimbursement rates in effect for both commercial insurers and Medicaid, including data collected by RAND, indicate that the reimbursement rate of $125/hour for one-on-one ABA for BCBAs that TRICARE is currently paying is above the prevailing rate in most locations. In many instances, TRICARE is either the highest or one of the highest payers. As a result of this extensive analysis, the Department will adjust ABA reimbursement rates under the ACD to be more consistent with other payers and implement geographic adjustments based on GPCI. Once national rates for all of the ABA CPT codes are determined, then adjustments for local wage indices or geographic localities will be applied on an annual basis. In addition to alignment with geographic rates, adjustments will be made for provider type (Ph.D. level, master's level, bachelor's level, and technician). National rates will be established via an independent Government analysis using all available data, including but not limited to the results of the independent RAND ABA study. Although the general 15% limitation on reduction of TRICARE reimbursement rates set forth in 10 U.S.C. 1079(h)(2) does not apply to rate determinations for demonstrations established under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 1092, the Department will nonetheless gradually reduce rates (if needed based on the results of the independent analysis) by no more than 15% per year until alignment with the prevailing geographic rate based on provider type is reached.
Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) will take place. This meeting is open to the public.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.; Thursday, June 18, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
Hilton Alexandria—Mark Center, 5000 Seminary Road, Alexandria, VA 22311.
Mr. Robert Bowling or DACOWITS Staff at 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 04J25-01, Alexandria, Virginia 22350-9000.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), and Section 10(a), Public Law 92-463, as amended, notice is hereby given of a forthcoming meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS).
The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to receive briefings and updates relating to their current work. The Designated Federal Officer will give a status update on the Committee's requests for information. The Committee will receive briefings on increasing female accessions, USSOCOM studies, and the USMC will give an update on the Infantry Officer Course and presentation on their Personal Protective Gear. Additionally, the Committee will receive a briefing from OSD Health Affairs and a briefing from DoD SAPRO and ODMEO on gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and sexual assault. Insight Policy Research will provide a briefing on the Committee's installation visits and focus group findings. The Services will provide briefings on their pregnancy and postpartum policies. There will also be a public comment period.
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, interested persons may submit a written statement for consideration by the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. Individuals submitting a written statement must submit their statement to the point of contact listed at the address in
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, this meeting is open to the public, subject to the availability of space.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to Point Semantics Corporation a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive license to practice in the field of use of Scientific and Engineering Instrumentation which shall mean measurement, monitoring and testing of materials for scientific and engineering purposes in the laboratory or in the field; and in the field of use of Industrial Structure and Materials Market which shall mean measurement monitoring and control systems used in industrial production and in infrastructure monitoring and control, including particularly supervisory control systems and distributed control systems used in manufacturing, mining and utilities (NAIC Sectors 21-23 and 31-33) in the United States, the Government-owned inventions described in U.S. Patent No. 8,600,147 entitled “System and Method for Remote Measurement of Displacement and Strain Fields”, Navy Case No. 099,829; U.S. Patent Publication No. U.S. 2013-0063570 entitled “System and Method for Remote Full Field Three-Dimensional Displacement and Strain Measurements”, Navy Case No. 101,258; and U.S. Patent Publication No. U.S. 2014-0037217 entitled “Method and Direct Strain Imaging”, Navy Case No. 101,954 and any continuations, divisionals or re-issues thereof.
Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file written
Written objections are to be filed with the Naval Research Laboratory, Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20375-5320.
Rita Manak, Head, Technology Transfer Office, NRL Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20375-5320, telephone 202-767-3083. Due to U.S. Postal delays, please fax 202-404-7920, email:
35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.
Denali Commission.
Notice.
The Denali Commission (Commission) is an independent federal agency based on an innovative federal-state partnership designed to provide critical utilities, infrastructure and support for economic development and training in Alaska by delivering federal services in the most cost-effective manner possible. The Commission was created in 1998 with passage of the October 21, 1998 Denali Commission Act (Act) (Title III of Pub. L. 105-277, 42 U.S.C. 3121). The Act requires that the Commission develop proposed work plans for future spending and that the annual Work Plan be published in the
Comments and related material to be received by July 1, 2015.
Submit comments to the Denali Commission, Attention: Sabrina Cabana, 510 L Street, Suite 410, Anchorage, AK 99501.
Ms. Sabrina Cabana, Denali Commission, 510 L Street, Suite 410, Anchorage, AK 99501. Telephone: (907) 271-1414. Email:
The Commission's mission is to partner with tribal, federal, state, and local governments and collaborate with all Alaskans to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of government services, to develop a well-trained labor force employed in a diversified and sustainable economy, and to build and ensure the operation and maintenance of Alaska's basic infrastructure.
By creating the Commission, Congress mandated that all parties involved partner together to find new and innovative solutions to the unique infrastructure and economic development challenges in America's most remote communities.
Pursuant to the Act, the Commission determines its own basic operating principles and funding criteria on an annual federal fiscal year (October 1 to September 30) basis. The Commission outlines these priorities and funding recommendations in an annual Work Plan. The Work Plan is adopted on an annual basis in the following manner, which occurs sequentially as listed:
• Project proposals are solicited from local government and other entities.
• Commissioners forward a draft version of the Work Plan to the Federal Co-Chair.
• The Federal Co-Chair approves the draft Work Plan for publication in the
• Public comment concludes and Commission staff provides the Federal Co-Chair with a summary of public comment and recommendations, if any, associated with the draft Work Plan.
• If no revisions are made to the draft, the Federal Co-Chair provides notice of approval of the Work Plan to the Commissioners, and forwards the Work Plan to the Secretary of Commerce for approval; or, if there are revisions the Federal Co-Chair provides notice of modifications to the Commissioners for their consideration and approval, and upon receipt of approval from Commissioners, forwards the Work Plan to the Secretary of Commerce for approval.
• The Secretary of Commerce approves the Work Plan.
• The Federal Co-Chair then approves grants and contracts based upon the approved Work Plan.
The Commission has historically received federal funding from several sources. These fund sources are governed by the following general principles:
• In FY 2015 no project specific direction was provided by Congress.
• The Energy and Water Appropriation (
• Certain appropriations are restricted in their usage. Where restrictions apply, the funds may be used only for specific program purposes.
• Final appropriation funds received may be reduced due to Congressional action, rescissions by the Office of Management and Budget, and other federal agency action.
• All Energy and Water Appropriation funds, including operating funds, designated as “up to” may be reassigned to other programs, if they are not fully expended in a program component area or a specific project.
• Total FY 2015 Budgetary Resources provided:
These are the figures that appear in the rows entitled “FY 2015 Appropriation” and are the original appropriations amounts which do not include Commission operating funds. These funds are identified by their source name (
• Total FY 2015 Program Available Funding:
These are the figures that appear in the rows entitled “FY 2015 Appropriations—Program Available” and are the amounts of funding available for program(s) activities after Commission operating funds have been deducted. The FY 2015 appropriations bill contains language that the
However only, five percent of Trans Alaska Pipeline Liability (TAPL) Trust Funds are used for agency operating purposes. The grand total for all program available funds appears at the end of the FY 2015 Funding Table.
• Program Funding:
These are the figures that appear in the rows entitled with the specific Program and Sub-Program area, and are the amounts of funding the Draft FY 2015 Work Plan recommends, within each program fund source for program components.
• Subtotal of Program Funding:
These are the figures that appear in rows entitled “subtotal” and are the subtotals of all program funding within a given fund source. The subtotal must always equal the Total FY 2015 Program Available Funding.
The following section provides narrative discussion for each of the Commission Programs identified for funding in the FY 2015 funding table above.
The Energy Program is the Commission's original program and focuses on bulk fuel facilities and rural power system upgrades/power generation (RPSU) across rural Alaska. About 94% of electricity in rural communities is produced by diesel generators and about half of the fuel storage in most villages is used for these power plants. The majority of the Commission's work in the energy program is carried out by two of our long-standing partners: Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), an agency of the State of Alaska, and the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), a non-profit member Organization serving 56 communities.
Since inception of the agency, the Commission has partnered with AEA on rural energy investments, and shortly thereafter, AVEC also became a program partner to address deficiencies in fuel storage and generation in the cooperative's communities. In recent years, a single combined list of energy projects has been compiled for both bulk fuel and RPSU programs. AEA maintains documents on their Web site that identify the universe of need for each of the programs and provides project status updates (see following links):
The legacy projects prioritized for FY 2015 funding are listed below within the two energy program themes: Bulk fuel and RPSU. The selected projects in the table below exceed FY 2015 funding levels (both TAPL and Energy and Water Appropriation), with the understanding that projects may proceed out of order due to factors such as the extended period of time between project selections, draft Work Plan development, and grant execution; match funding availability; and due diligence requirements.
Beginning in FY 2012, Energy and Water Appropriations were subject to a statutory cost share requirement for construction activities of 20% for distressed communities and 50% for non-distressed communities. That cost share match requirement has since been applied to all energy program funding sources. All projects prioritized for FY 2015 funding, with the exception of Shungnak bulk fuel upgrade, are in distressed communities and will include at least a 20% project cost share match.
In FY 2015, the Commission, AEA, and AVEC will investigate opportunities with existing bulk fuel storage facilities to refurbish the infrastructure resulting in code compliance and significant extension of the life of the facilities at a reduced cost versus complete replacement. The Commission provided funding to AEA to update the statewide bulk fuel inventory assessment, which will help inform all parties of the potential for refurbishment of facilities. The updated assessment is scheduled to be completed by the end of FY 2015 and therefore applied to FY 2016 investments if applicable. The refurbishment approach was considered for the AVEC projects listed in the bulk fuel project table.
Office of Communication and Outreach (OCO), 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 June 29, 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 Simone Olson, 202-205-8719.
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.
Department of Education (ED), Federal Student Aid (FSA).
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 June 29, 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 Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.
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.
Institutions are still required to report student Pell Grant payment information to ED electronically. Electronic reporting is conducted through the Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) system. The COD system is used by institutions to request, report, and reconcile grant funds received from the Pell Grant program.
Department of Education (ED), Institute of Education Sciences (IES)
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 28, 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 Christopher Boccanfuso, (202) 219-1674.
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
Office of the Chief Information Officer, Department of Education.
Notice of altered and deleted systems of records under the Privacy Act of 1974.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, as amended (Privacy Act), the Department of Education (Department) publishes this notice proposing an altered system of records entitled “Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Tracking System.” The Department also deletes the system of records entitled “Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Case Files” (18-04-01) from its existing inventory of systems of records subject to the Privacy Act.
For the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act (PA) Tracking System, this notice updates the system location and system of records notice (SORN) number, categories of individuals covered by the system, categories of records in the system, system managers and addresses, and routine uses.
The Department identifies the system of records, Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Case Files (18-04-01), as published in the
The Department seeks comments on the altered and deleted systems of records described in this notice, in accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act. We must receive your comments on the proposed changes to the FOIA and PA Tracking System of records included in this notice on or before June 29, 2015.
The Department filed a report describing the alterations to the FOIA and PA Tracking System of records with the Chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on May 14, 2015. The alterations to the FOIA and PA Tracking System of records will become effective at the later date of: (1) The expiration of the 40-day period for OMB review on June 23, 2015, unless OMB waives 10 days of the 40-day review period for compelling reasons shown by the Department; or (2) June 29, 2015, unless the altered FOIA and PA Tracking system of records needs to be changed as a result of public comment or OMB review. The Department will publish any changes to the altered system of records notice that result from public comment or OMB review.
Address all comments about the FOIA and PA Tracking System to Freedom of Information Act Service Center Director, Office of Management, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW., LBJ 2E305, Washington, DC 20202-4536. If you prefer to send your comments by email, use the following address:
You must include the phrase “Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Tracking System” in the subject line of your email.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice in Room 502D, 555 New Jersey Avenue NW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
Freedom of Information Act Service Center Director, Office of Management, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW., Room LBJ 2E305, Washington, DC 20202-4536. Telephone: (202) 453-6362.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11)) requires the Department to publish in the
The Privacy Act applies to any record about an individual that is maintained in a system of records from which individually identifying information is retrieved by a unique identifier associated with each individual, such as a name or social security number (SSN). The information about each individual is called a “record,” and the system, whether manual or computer-based, is called a “system of records.”
The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish notices of systems of records in the
Since the last publication of the FOIA and PA Tracking System of records in the
The changes in the attached notice for the FOIA and PA Tracking System are numerous.
First, the system location has been updated to reflect the relocation of the Department's data center; to change its numbering from 18-04-02 to 18-05-20, and change the system location from the Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) to the Office of Management (OM).
Second, the paragraph in the notice describing the categories of individuals covered by the system is being updated to include individuals who have submitted requests for FOIA administrative appeals; individuals whose requests for records have been referred to the Department by other agencies; individuals who are the subject of such requests, appeals; and/or personnel assigned to handle such requests and appeals.
Third, the paragraph in the notice describing the categories of records contained in the system originally stated that copies of requested records were not maintained in the system. This notice is updating the categories of records in the system to state that copies of requested records are maintained in the system. In addition, the categories of records in the system have been updated to include the following records and related correspondence on individuals: requester's name, address, telephone number, email address, amount of fees paid and payment delinquencies, if any; the original requests and administrative appeals, responses to such requests and appeals, all related memoranda, correspondence, notes, and other related or supporting documentation, summary of log, and in some instances, copies of requested records and records under administrative appeal.
Fourth, the routine uses of records maintained in the system have been updated and two new routine uses will be added.
The Department proposes to revise routine use (3)(a)(iii) “Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Disclosures” to permit the Department to disclose certain records from this system to the parties described in routine use paragraphs (3)(b) “Disclosure to the Department of Justice (DOJ),” (3)(c) “Administrative Disclosures,” and (3)(d) “Parties, Counsel, Representatives, and Witnesses” for any Department employee in his or her individual capacity if the DOJ has been requested to provide or arrange for representation of the employee. This proposed routine use is compatible with this system of records because it will allow the Department to disclose records from this system of records as needed to obtain legal representation for Department employees.
The Department proposes to revise routine use (6) “Labor Organization Disclosure” to permit the Department to disclose records from this system to an arbitrator to resolve disputes under a negotiated grievance procedure or to officials of labor organizations recognized under 5 U.S.C. chapter 71 when relevant and necessary to their duties of exclusive representation. This proposed routine use is compatible with this system of records because it will permit the Department to fulfill its statutory obligation to allow a labor organization to perform its duties of exclusive representation and it will permit the disclosure of records to arbitrators as needed to resolve disputes pursuant to negotiated grievance procedures.
The Department also proposes to revise routine use (7) “Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act Advice Disclosure” to permit the Department to disclose records from this system to the Department of Justice and OMB if the Department concludes that disclosure is desirable or necessary in determining whether particular records are required to be disclosed under the FOIA or the Privacy Act. This proposed routine use is compatible with the purposes of this system because it will permit the Department to obtain counsel necessary to ensure that individual privacy rights are protected and FOIA requirements are met and followed.
The Department proposes to add a new, routine use (13) “Disclosure in the Course of Responding to a Breach of Data” to permit the Department to disclose records from this system to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (a) The Department suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (b) the Department has determined that as a result for the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (c) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm. This proposed routine use is compatible with the purposes of the system because it will permit the Department to take appropriate steps in response to a breach of personally identifiable information that is maintained in this system and to abide by the requirements relating to a breach of personally identifiable information that are set forth in OMB Memorandum 07-16 “Safeguarding Against and Responding to the Breach of Personally Identifiable Information.”
The Department proposes to add a new, routine use (14) “Disclosure to National Archives Records Administration, Office of Government Information Services (OGIS),” to the extent necessary to fulfill its responsibilities in 5 U.S.C. 552(h), to
Fifth, the policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system have been updated to include storage of data in a computer database, because the original FOIA and PA Tracking System notice omitted this. Further, the retention and disposal policy has been updated to comply with the General Records Schedule (GRS) approved by NARA.
Sixth, the description of safeguards has been updated to include additional security measures that have been put in place.
Finally, the Department updated the description of the system managers and their addresses to reflect minor changes in addresses.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management of the U.S. Department of Education (Department) publishes a notice of deleted and altered systems of records to read as follows:
The Department identifies the system of records entitled the “Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Case Files” (18-04-01), as published in the
18-05-20
Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Tracking System.
None.
Electronic Data Records: Plano Technology Center, 2300 West Plano Parkway, Plano, TX 75075.
See Appendix for additional system locations.
This system contains records on individuals or their representatives who have submitted Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or Privacy Act (PA) requests for records and/or FOIA administrative appeals with the Department; individuals whose requests for records have been referred to the Department by other agencies; individuals who are the subject of such requests, appeals; and/or the Department personnel assigned to handle such requests and appeals.
This system consists of records created or compiled in response to FOIA requests, PA requests or both FOIA/PA requests for records or subsequent administrative appeals to include: The requester's name, address, telephone number, email address; amount of fees paid, and payment delinquencies, if any; the original requests and administrative appeals; responses to such requests and appeals; all related memoranda, correspondence, notes, and other related or supporting documentation, summary of log, and in some instances copies of requested records and records under administrative appeal.
Since these FOIA/PA case records contain inquiries and requests regarding the Department's other systems of records subject to the Privacy Act, information about individuals from any of these other systems may become part of this FOIA and PA Tracking System.
The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended; The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, as amended.
This system is used to document and track the status of requests made under both FOIA and the Privacy Act. This system is also used to generate the annual report to the Department of Justice (DOJ) as required by the Freedom of Information Act and the biennial report to the OMB and Congress as required by the Privacy Act.
The Department may disclose information contained in a record in this system of records under the routine uses listed in this system of records without the consent of the individual if the disclosure is compatible with a purpose for which the record was collected. These disclosures are made on a case-by-case basis or, if the Department has complied with the computer matching requirements of the Privacy Act, under a computer matching agreement.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(i) The Department, or any of its components; or
(ii) Any Department employee in his or her official capacity; or
(iii) Any Department employee in his or her individual capacity if the Department of Justice (DOJ) has agreed to or has been requested to provide or
(iv) Any Department employee in his or her individual capacity where the Department has agreed to represent the employee; or
(v) The United States where the Department determines that the litigation is likely to affect the Department or any of its components.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(4)
(a)
(b)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
Not applicable to this notice.
Paper records are kept in file folders in locked file cabinets. Electronic records are kept in a computer database
Records are retrieved by the name of the individual or the control tracking number.
All physical access to the sites of the Department and the Department's contractors where this system of records are maintained is controlled and monitored by security personnel who check each individual entering the building for his or her employee badge. Paper files are kept in locked file cabinets. Immediate access to these records is restricted to authorized staff. Direct access to the computer system employed by the Department is restricted to authorized Department staff performing official duties. Authorized staff members are assigned passwords that must be used for access to computerized data. Also, an additional password is necessary to gain access to the system. The system-access password is changed frequently. The Department's information system's security posture has been certified and accredited in accordance with applicable Federal standards. The computer database maintained by Privacy Information & Records Management Services, Office of Management, is accessible only to authorized persons and is password-protected and utilizes security hardware and software. Additionally, the web-based portal is accessible only to authorized persons and is password-protected.
In accordance with the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA), the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Tracking System must receive a signed Authority to Operate (ATO) from a designated Education official. The ATO process includes an assessment of security controls, a plan of action and milestones to remediate any identified deficiencies, and a continuous monitoring program.
FISMA controls implemented by the Department include a combination of management, operational, and technical controls, and include the following control families: Access control, awareness and training, audit and accountability, security assessment and authorization, configuration management, contingency planning, identification and authentication, incident response, maintenance, media protection, physical and environmental protection, planning, personnel security, privacy, risk assessment, system and services acquisition, system and communications protection, system and information integrity, and program management.
Records relating to FOIA and PA Tracking System are retained in accordance with General Records Schedule (GRS 14):
Freedom of Information Act Service Center Director, Room LBJ 2E305, 400 Maryland Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20202.
If an individual wishes to gain access to a record in this system of records, he or she should contact the system manager at the appropriate office or region where the original FOIA or Privacy Act requests were sent, or from where the response was received. A request to amend a record must meet the requirements of the Department's Privacy Act regulations in 34 CFR 5b.5, including proof of identity.
If an individual wishes to gain access to a record in this system of records, he or she should contact the system manager at the appropriate office or region where the original FOIA or Privacy Act requests were sent, or from where the response was received. A request to amend a record must meet the requirements of the Department's Privacy Act regulations in 34 CFR 5b.5, including proof of identity.
If an individual wishes to contest the content of a record pertaining to him or herself that is contained in the system of records, he or she should contact the system manager at the appropriate office or region where the original FOIA or Privacy Act requests were sent (see appendix), or from where the response was received. A request to amend a record must meet the requirements of the Department's Privacy Act regulations in 34 CFR 5b.7.
Information in this system of records is obtained from the individual who submitted the request, officials of the Department, and official Department documents.
None.
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 7C122, Washington, DC 20202.
Office of the Under Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 7E313, Washington, DC 20202.
Office of the Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 7W316, Washington, DC 20202.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Department of Education, Potomac Center Plaza, 550 12th Street SW., Room 6105, Washington, DC 20202.
Office of Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Education, Potomac Center Plaza, 550 12th Street SW., Room 9111, Washington, DC 20202.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education, Potomac Center Plaza, 550 12th Street SW., Room 5064, Washington, DC 20202.
Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education, Potomac Center Plaza, 550 12th Street SW., Room 11129, Washington, DC 20202.
Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 6E333, Washington, DC 20202.
Office of Management, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 2E209, Washington, DC 20202.
Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Education, Potomac Center Plaza, 550 12th Street SW., Room 8086, Washington, DC 20202.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W253, Washington, DC 20202.
Office of Student Financial Assistance Programs, U.S. Department of Education, Union Center Plaza, 830 1st Street NE., Room 22D2, Washington, DC 20202.
Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4C151, Washington, DC 20202.
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Capital Place, 555 New Jersey Avenue NW., Room 627B, Washington, DC 20208.
Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 7147, Washington, DC 20006.
Office of Legislation & Congressional Affairs, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 6W352, Washington, DC 20202.
Office of Communication & Outreach, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5E225, Washington, DC 20202.
Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5E319, Washington, DC 20202.
National Assessment Governing Board, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Room 825, Washington, DC 20002.
Region I: Regional Director, OCR, 5 Post Office Square, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02109-3921.
Region II: Regional Director, OCR, 32 Old Slip, 26th Floor, New York, NY 10005-2500.
Region III: Regional Director, OCR, The Wanamaker Building, 100 Penn Square East, Suite 515, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3323.
Region IV: Regional Director, OCR, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Suite 19T10, Atlanta, GA 30303-8927.
Region V: Regional Director, OCR Citigroup Center, 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 1475, Chicago, IL 60661
Region VI: Regional Director, OCR, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 1620, Dallas, TX 75201-6810.
Region VII: Regional Director, OCR, One Petticoat Lane, 1010 Walnut Street, Suite 320, 3rd Floor, Kansas City, MO 64106.
Region VIII: Regional Director, OCR, Cesar E. Chavez Memorial Building, 1244 Speer Boulevard, Suite 310, Denver, CO 80204-3582.
Region IX: Regional Director, OCR 50 Beale Street, Suite 7200, San Francisco, CA 94105.
Region X: Regional Director, OCR, 915 Second Avenue, Room 3310, Seattle, WA 98174-1099.
Region XI: Regional Director, OCR, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-1745.
Region XV: Regional Director, OCR, 1350 Euclid Avenue, Suite 325, Cleveland, OH 44115.
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Fuel Quality Regulations for Diesel Fuel Sold in 2001 & Later Years; for Tax-Exempt (Dyed) Highway Diesel Fuel; & Non-Road Locomotive & Marine Diesel Fuel” (EPA ICR No 1718.10., OMB Control No. 2060-0308 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 28, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1121, 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.
Geanetta Heard, Fuels Compliance Center, 6406J, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-343-9017; fax number: 202-565-2085; 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,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Aircraft Engines—Supplemental Information Related to Exhaust Emissions” (EPA ICR No. 2427.03, OMB Control No. 2060-0680) 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 28, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing the Docket ID Number above, 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.
Alan Stout, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; telephone number: 734-214-4805; 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,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Air Pollution Regulations for Outer Continental Shelf” (EPA ICR No. 1601.09, OMB Control No. 2060-0249) 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 28, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing the Docket ID Number above, 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.
David Painter, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division (C504-03), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5515; fax number: (919) 541-5509; 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 type and quantity of information required will depend on the circumstances surrounding the action. First, the entity must make an applicability determination. If the source is located within 25 miles of the state's seaward boundaries as established in the regulations, the requirements are the same as those that would be applicable if the source were located in the corresponding onshore area. State and local air pollution control agencies are usually requested to provide information concerning regulation of offshore sources and are provided opportunities to comment on the proposed determinations. The public is also provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed determinations.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than June 11, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice is hereby given of the final approval of proposed information collections by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) under OMB delegated authority. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
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.
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.
Final approval under OMB delegated authority of the extension for three years, with revision, of the following report(s):
1.
2.
The FR 2835a collects information on two measures of credit card interest rates from a sample of commercial banks with $1 billion or more in credit card receivables and a representative group of smaller issuers. The data are used to analyze the credit card market and draw implications for the household sector.
3.
Office of Information Integrity, and Access; Office of Government-wide Policy; General Services Administration.
Notice of public meeting.
The purpose of this public meeting is to present information related to the government's analysis of responses to the General Services Administration's (GSA) Request for Information (RFI) on Business Due Diligence for Acquisition Involving Government Information or Information Systems, dated December 12, 2014. The meeting will focus on the problem of supply chain security, potential solution(s), and a path forward to initializing operation of the solution(s).
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 2, 2015 from 11:30 a.m. to 3 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, during the Software Supply Chain Assurance (SSCA) Working Groups (WGs) at MITRE. Online registration for the SSCA WGs is at
•
•
Ms. Rowan Ha, Cybersecurity Specialist, GSA Office of Government-wide Policy, at 202-219-1270, or
Federal Agencies continue to express concerns about potential risks in the products, services, and solutions they purchase. These concerns extend to all purchased items that connect in any way to a government information system and/or which contain, transmit, or process information provided by or generated for the government to support the operations and assets of a Federal agency.
Federal Agencies need better visibility into, and understanding of, how the products, services, and solutions they buy are developed, integrated, and deployed. Agencies are also interested in strengthening confidence in the processes, procedures, and practices used to improve the integrity, security, resilience, and quality of those products and services.
GSA is collaborating with its customer agencies and other stakeholders to establish a common set of risk indicators that can be used as the baseline for business due diligence research. This common core of risk indicators and risk research methodologies will be complementary to, and not a replacement for, existing government supply chain risk management activities.
Following a period of research and development to analyze and validate risk assessment processes, GSA intends to use a consensus set of common risk indicators from government and industry to enhance its current risk assessment processes. It is anticipated that the business due diligence information obtained will be used by the Federal acquisition, grant, and oversight communities to support
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
Integrating Community Pharmacists and Clinical Sites for Patient-Centered HIV Care (OMB No. 0920-1019, Expires 05/31/2017)—[Revision]—National Center for HIV, Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Revisions to this information collection include the addition of an Interviewer data collection worksheet, Key Informant Interviewer script, Staff communication questionnaire, Clinic cost form and Pharmacy cost form. These additions are needed in order to determine changes to clinic and pharmacy work systems, processes and outcomes in relation to the model project and how and if the model program improves patient outcomes through improved communication and collaboration between patients' clinical providers and pharmacists. In order to determine the general feasibility of the model program, the time required conducting program activities and the associated cost of program activities must be determined. Collection of data from the previously approved Initial patient information forms, Quarterly patient information forms, Pharmacy record abstraction forms, Project clinic characteristics forms, and Project pharmacy characteristics forms is ongoing. Clinic staff will use the initial information Sheet to explain the project to patients.
CDC has entered into a partnership with Walgreen Company (a.k.a. Walgreens pharmacies, a national retail pharmacy chain) and the University of North Texas Health Science Center to develop and implement a model of HIV care that integrates community pharmacists with primary medical providers for patient-centered HIV care. The model program will be implemented at ten sites and will provide patient-centered HIV care for approximately 1,000 persons.
The patient-centered HIV care model includes the core elements of pharmacist provided Medication Therapy Management (MTM) as well as additional pharmacist services such as individualized medication adherence counseling, active monitoring of prescription refills and active collaboration between pharmacists and medical clinic providers to identify and resolve medication related treatment problems such as treatment effectiveness, adverse events and poor adherence. The expected outcomes of the model program are increased retention in HIV care, adherence to HIV medication therapy and HIV viral load suppression.
Pharmacy, laboratory and medical data are collected through abstraction of participant clients' pharmacy and medical records. These data are needed to monitor retention in care, adherence to therapy, viral load suppression and other health outcomes. Program specific data, such as the number of MTM elements completed per project site and project sites' characteristics, will be collected by project sites.
This information collection will allow CDC to conduct continuous program performance monitoring which includes identification of barriers to program implementation, solutions to those barriers, and documentation of client health outcomes. Performance monitoring will allow the model program to be adjusted, as needed, in order to develop a final implementation model that is self-sustaining and which can be used to establish similar collaborations in a variety of clinical settings. Collection of cost data will allow for the cost of the program to be estimated. There is no cost to participants other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 6,043.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by June 29, 2015.
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Advisory Panel on Outreach and Education (APOE) (the Panel) in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Panel advises and makes recommendations to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of consumer education strategies concerning the Health Insurance Marketplace, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). This meeting is open to the public.
Abigail Huffman, Designated Federal Official (DFO), Office of Communications, CMS, 7500 Security Boulevard, Mail Stop S1-05-06, Baltimore, MD 21244, 410-786-0897, email
The Advisory Panel for Outreach and Education (APOE) (the Panel) is governed by the provisions of Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees. The Panel is authorized by section 1114(f) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1314(f)) and section 222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 217a).
The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (the Secretary) signed the charter establishing the Citizen's Advisory Panel on Medicare Education
The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108-173) expanded the existing health plan options and benefits available under the M+C program and renamed it the Medicare Advantage (MA) program. We have had substantial responsibilities to provide information to Medicare beneficiaries about the range of health plan options available and better tools to evaluate these options. The successful MA program implementation required CMS to consider the views and policy input from a variety of private sector constituents and to develop a broad range of public-private partnerships.
In addition, Title I of the MMA authorized the Secretary and the Administrator of CMS (by delegation) to establish the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The drug benefit allows beneficiaries to obtain qualified prescription drug coverage. In order to effectively administer the MA program and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, we have substantial responsibilities to provide information to Medicare beneficiaries about the range of health plan options and benefits available, and to develop better tools to evaluate these plans and benefits.
The Affordable Care Act (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, and Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-152) expanded the availability of other options for health care coverage and enacted a number of changes to Medicare as well as to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Qualified individuals and qualified employers are now able to purchase private health insurance coverage through competitive marketplace, called Affordable Insurance Exchange (also called Health Insurance Marketplace, and “Marketplace”). In order to effectively implement and administer these changes, we must provide information to consumers, providers, and other stakeholders through education and outreach programs regarding how existing programs will change and the expanded range of health coverage options available, including private health insurance coverage through the Marketplace. The APOE (the Panel) allows us to consider a broad range of views and information from interested audiences in connection with this effort and to identify opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of education strategies concerning the Affordable Care Act.
The scope of this panel also includes advising on issues pertaining to the education of providers and stakeholders with respect to the Affordable Care Act and certain provisions of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).
On January 21, 2011, the Panel's charter was renewed and the Panel was renamed the Advisory Panel for Outreach and Education. The Panel's charter was most recently renewed on January 21, 2015, and will terminate on January 21, 2017 unless renewed by appropriate action.
Under the current charter, the APOE will advise the Secretary and the Administrator on optimal strategies for the following:
• Developing and implementing education and outreach programs for individuals enrolled in, or eligible for, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), or coverage available through the Health Insurance Marketplace.
• Enhancing the federal government's effectiveness in informing Health Insurance Marketplace, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP consumers, issuers, providers, and stakeholders, through education and outreach programs, on issues regarding these programs, including the appropriate use of public-private partnerships to leverage the resources of the private sector in educating beneficiaries, providers, and stakeholders.
• Expanding outreach to vulnerable and underserved communities, including racial and ethnic minorities, in the context of Health Insurance Marketplace, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP education programs.
• Assembling and sharing an information base of “best practices” for helping consumers evaluate health coverage options.
• Building and leveraging existing community infrastructures for information, counseling, and assistance.
• Drawing the program link between outreach and education, promoting consumer understanding of health care coverage choices, and facilitating consumer selection/enrollment, which in turn support the overarching goal of improved access to quality care, including prevention services, envisioned under the Affordable Care Act.
The current members of the Panel are: Samantha Artiga, Principal Policy Analyst, Kaiser Family Foundation; Joseph Baker, President, Medicare Rights Center; Kellan Baker, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress; Philip Bergquist, Manager, Health Center Operations, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA) Outreach & Enrollment Project and Director, Michigan Primary Care Association; Marjorie Cadogan, Executive Deputy Commissioner, Department of Social Services; Barbara Ferrer, Chief Strategy Officer, W. K. Kellogg Foundation; Shelby Gonzales, Senior Health Outreach Associate, Center on Budget & Policy Priorities; Jan Henning, Benefits Counseling & Special Projects Coordinator, North Central Texas Council of Governments' Area Agency on Aging; Louise Knight, Director, The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Miriam Mobley-Smith, Dean, Chicago State University, College of Pharmacy; Ana Natale-Pereira, M.D., Associate Professor of Medicine, Rutgers-New Jersey Medical School; Roanne Osborne-Gaskin, M.D., Associate Medical Director, Neighborhood Health Plan of Rhode Island; Megan Padden, Vice President, Sentara Health Plans; Jeanne Ryer, Director, New Hampshire Citizens Health Initiative, University of New Hampshire; Carla Smith, Executive Vice President, Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS); Winston Wong, Medical Director, Community Benefit Director, Kaiser Permanente and Darlene Yee-Melichar, Professor & Coordinator, San Francisco State University.
In accordance with section 10(a) of the FACA, this notice announces a meeting of the APOE. The agenda for the June 25, 2015 meeting will include the following:
Individuals or organizations that wish to make a 5-minute oral presentation on an agenda topic should submit a written copy of the oral presentation to the DFO at the address listed in the
Sec. 222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 217a) and sec. 10(a) of Pub. L. 92-463 (5 U.S.C. App. 2, sec. 10(a) and 41 CFR 102-3).
Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained 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. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address:
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of public advisory committees of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Stephanie L. Begansky at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the
Fax written comments on the collection of information by June 29, 2015.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
FDA's regulations governing the format and content of labeling for human prescription drug and biological products were revised in the
Currently, § 201.56 (21 CFR 201.56) requires that prescription drug labeling contain certain information in the format specified in either § 201.57 (21 CFR 201.57) or § 201.80 (21 CFR 201.80), depending on when the drug was approved for marketing. Section 201.56(a) sets forth general labeling requirements applicable to all prescription drugs. Section 201.56(b) specifies the categories of new and more recently approved prescription drugs subject to the revised content and format requirements in §§ 201.56(d) and 201.57. Section 201.56(c) sets forth the schedule for implementing these revised content and format requirements. Section 201.56(e) specifies the sections and subsections, required and optional, for the labeling of older prescription drugs not subject to the revised format and content requirements.
Section 201.57(a) requires that prescription drug labeling for new and more recently approved prescription drug products include “Highlights of Prescribing Information.” “Highlights” provides a concise extract of the most important information required under § 201.57(c) (the Full Prescribing Information (FPI)), as well as certain additional information important to prescribers. Section 201.57(b) requires a table of contents to prescribing information, entitled “Full Prescribing Information: Contents,” consisting of a list of each heading and subheading along with its identifying number to facilitate health care practitioners' use of labeling information. Section 201.57(c) specifies the contents of the FPI. Section 201.57(d) mandates the minimum specifications for the format of prescription drug labeling and establishes minimum requirements for key graphic elements such as bold type, bullet points, type size, and spacing.
Older drugs not subject to the revised labeling content and format requirements in § 201.57 are subject to labeling requirements at § 201.80. Section 201.80(f)(2) requires that within 1 year, any FDA-approved patient labeling be referenced in the “Precautions” section of the labeling of older products and either accompany or be reprinted immediately following the labeling.
In the
New drug product applicants must: (1) Design and create prescription drug labeling containing “Highlights”, “Contents”, and FPI; (2) test the designed labeling (
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by July 28, 2015.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to:
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506 (c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumption used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
FDA regulations require the distribution of patient labeling, called Medication Guides, for certain prescription human drug and biological products used primarily on an outpatient basis that pose a serious and significant public health concern requiring distribution of FDA-approved patient medication information. These Medication Guides inform patients about the most important information they should know about these products in order to use them safely and effectively. Included is information such as the drug's approved uses, contraindications, adverse drug reactions, and cautions for specific populations, with a focus on why the particular product requires a Medication Guide. These regulations are intended to improve the public health by providing information necessary for patients to use certain medication safely and effectively.
The regulations contain the following reporting requirements that are subject to the PRA:
• 21 CFR 208.20—Applicants must submit draft Medication Guides for FDA approval according to the prescribed content and format.
• 21 CFR 314.70(b)(3)(ii) and 21 CFR 601.12(f)—Application holders must submit changes to Medication Guides to FDA for prior approval as supplements to their applications.
• 21 CFR 208.24(c)—Each distributor or packer that receives Medication Guides, or the means to produce Medication Guides, from a manufacturer under paragraph (b) of this section shall provide those Medication Guides to each authorized dispenser to whom it ships a container of drug product.
• 21 CFR 208.24(e)—Each authorized dispenser of a prescription drug product for which a Medication Guide is required, when dispensing the product to a patient or to a patient's agent, must provide a Medication Guide directly to each patient unless an exemption applies under 21 CFR 208.26.
• 21 CFR 208.26(a)—Requests may be submitted for exemption or deferral from particular Medication Guide content or format requirements.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled, “Guidance for Industry on Postmarketing Adverse Event Reporting for Medical Products and Dietary Supplements During an Influenza Pandemic” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
On January 8, 2015, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled, “Guidance for Industry on Postmarketing Adverse Event Reporting for Medical Products and Dietary Supplements During an Influenza Pandemic” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 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. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0701. The approval expires on April 30, 2018. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
Request for Information.
This document is a request for information regarding specific aspects of the regulatory policies and standards that may be applied to the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (hair specimen).
Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission. You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
Sean Belouin, Division of Workplace Programs, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), SAMHSA, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Room 7-1029, Rockville, Maryland 20857, (240) 276-2716 (phone), (240) 276-2610 (Fax), or email at
Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following Web site as soon as possible after they have been received:
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) establishes the standards for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs under the authority of Section 503 of Public Law 100-71, 5 U.S.C. 7301, and Executive Order No. 12564. As required, HHS published the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Guidelines) in the
Section 503 of Public Law 100-71, 5 U.S.C. 7301 note, required the Department to establish scientific and technical guidelines and amendments in accordance with Executive Order 12564 and to publish Mandatory Guidelines which establish comprehensive standards for all aspects of laboratory drug testing and procedures, including standards that require the use of the best available technology for ensuring the full reliability and accuracy of drug tests and strict procedures governing the chain of custody of specimens collected for drug testing. These revisions to the Mandatory Guidelines promote and establish standards that use the best available technology for ensuring the full reliability and accuracy of drug tests, while reflecting the ongoing process of review and evaluation of legal, scientific, and societal concerns.
SAMHSA's chartered CSAP Drug Testing Advisory Board (DTAB) is the vehicle to provide recommendations to the SAMHSA Administrator for proposed changes to the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs. The DTAB process involves evaluating the scientific supportability of any considered change. To assist the DTAB, we are soliciting written comments and statements from the general public and industry stakeholders regarding a variety of issues related to hair specimen drug testing, including the hair specimen, its collection, specimen preparation, analytes/cutoffs, specimen validity, and initial and confirmatory testing.
We are seeking additional information to inform potential use of hair specimens for drug testing, specifically on the following questions:
• What are the acceptable body locations from which to collect hair for workplace drug testing? What should be done if head hair is not available for collection?
• What hair treatments (
• What are the acceptable reasons for hair testing (
• What training should a collector receive prior to collecting the hair specimen?
• What is the best protocol to collect the hair specimen?
• Should the hair collection protocol be standardized, including specific instructions on how close to cut the hair specimen to the skin, how to determine the authenticity of the hair specimen, what cutting instruments to use, how to ensure the cutting instruments are decontaminated, and whether the use of collection kits should be required?
• What is the minimum amount of hair that should be collected?
• What are acceptable protocols for hair specimen preparation, such as cutting/powdering, initial washing, decontamination, and pre-extraction (
• Should the washing and decontamination procedures be analyte specific?
• What criteria should be used to determine the acceptability of a specific wash and decontamination procedure? Are there published research studies, with experimental data included, that demonstrate that a particular wash procedure is effective at removing external contaminants while not significantly affecting the amount of incorporated drug related to drug use?
• If washing steps are used for decontamination, should adjustments be made for drug concentrations detected in the wash fluids? What calculations are recommended for these adjustments?
• What analytes should be measured in hair by the initial and confirmatory tests?
• What initial and confirmation cutoffs should be used for the various hair drug testing analytes?
• For each analyte/drug, what criteria (cutoff) should be used to distinguish external contamination from drug use?
• What unique metabolites or other biomarkers exist to confirm use and to distinguish drug use from external contamination for which the drugs are currently tested?
• Are biomarkers or tests needed to verify that the specimen is authentic human hair?
• Are there appropriate biomarkers or tests for the hair specimen that would reveal adulteration and/or substitution? What are the acceptability criteria for these biomarkers or tests?
• Is the “invalid” result category reasonable for hair testing? If so, what criteria are acceptable to classify a specimen result as invalid?
• What technologies are available to perform initial and confirmatory testing on hair specimens?
• What is the best sample for valid quality control/proficiency testing material? How should this quality control/proficiency testing material be prepared? What is the best method to prepare a contaminated hair sample versus a sample that represents drug use?
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice.
The Coast Guard announces that the Coast Guard District Prevention Divisions have issued certificates of alternative compliance to vessels of special construction or purpose that cannot fully comply with the light, shape, and sound signal provisions of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (72 COLREGS) and/or Inland Navigation Rules without interfering with their special function. This notice promotes the Coast Guard's maritime safety and stewardship missions.
For information about this document call or email LCDR Megan Cull, Coast Guard Navigation Standards Division; telephone (202) 372-1565, email
The special construction or purpose of some vessels makes them unable to comply with the light, shape, and sound signal provisions of the 72 COLREGS and/or Inland Navigation Rules. Under 72 COLREGS, statutory law and Coast Guard regulations, a vessel may instead meet alternative requirements and the vessel's owner, builder, operator, or agent may apply for a certificate of alternative compliance (COAC). The Chief of the Inspections and Investigations Branch in each Coast Guard District office determines whether the vessel for which the COAC is sought complies as closely as possible with the 72 COLREGS and/or Inland Navigation Rules, and decides whether to issue the COAC. Once issued, a COAC remains valid until information supplied in the application for the COAC, or the terms of the COAC becomes inapplicable to the vessel. Under the governing statute
The Coast Guard issued COACs to the following vessels between 2010 and 2014:
This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 33 U.S.C. 1605(c), and 33 CFR 81.18.
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 a revision of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA)—State Preparedness Report (SPR) Unified Reporting Tool.
Comments must be submitted on or before July 28, 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
Leiloni Stainsby, Section Chief—Assessments Branch, FEMA, National Preparedness Assessment Division, at 202-786-9737. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at email address:
This package is a revision to the collection originally approved as the State Preparedness Report, OMB Control Number: 1660-0131. FEMA is updating the name of this collection from “State Preparedness Report” to the “Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA)—State Preparedness Report (SPR) Unified Reporting Tool” to reflect more accurately the information and method of collection. The
FEMA holds annual after-action calls every January. All state and local jurisdictions that complete the THIRA/SPR are invited to participate and provide feedback on the collection process. FEMA uses this after-action process to gather feedback on the utility of the information and on how the burden can be further reduced. Participation in these calls is voluntary. FEMA estimates that the time it takes to participate in and respond to the THIRA/SPR After Action Conference Calls is one hour per respondent for a total of 123 hours.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice of availability and request for comment.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requests public comments on the draft “Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants” (NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 2).
Comments must be received by August 27, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket ID FEMA-2012-0026, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472.
William Eberst, Policy Supervisor, Professional Services Branch, Technological Hazards Division, Protection and National Preparedness Directorate,
You may submit your comments and material by methods specified in the
In November 1980, the Federal Emergency Management Agency issued “Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants” (NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1) jointly with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as a joint policy document. (45 FR 85862, December 30, 1980).
NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 was issued as a joint FEMA/NRC policy document that provides guidance on the sixteen Planning Standards referenced in FEMA's regulations at 44 CFR 350.5 and the NRC's regulations at 10 CFR part 50. Both agencies use these Planning Standards to evaluate the adequacy of the emergency plans of commercial nuclear power plant owners and operators, and the emergency plans and preparedness of State and local governments within the Emergency Planning Zones surrounding commercial nuclear power plants.
Since the publication of NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 in 1980, four supplementary documents and one addendum (66 FR 22270, May 3, 2001) have been issued that update and modify specific planning and procedural elements. These documents are available online at
Since the publication of these documents, there have been changes to FEMA and NRC regulations, guidance, policies and advances in technology. FEMA, working with the NRC, is soliciting comments from stakeholders and interested members of the public on the draft document “Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants,” NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 2. The document is available online at
FEMA and the NRC held two public meetings on August 22, 2012 and September 13, 2012 as well as two public stakeholder engagement sessions held on October 29-31, 2013 and June 25, 2014. The purpose of these public meetings were to: (1) Solicit input from stakeholders and interested members of the public on the scope of future revisions to NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1; (2) describe the proposed timeline for the revisions to NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1; (3) promote transparency, public participation, and collaboration during the NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1 revision process; and (4) allow direct input to the writing teams during the writing process. All of the presentation material and meeting notes are available to review online at
Through this Notice, FEMA and NRC are soliciting comments from stakeholders and interested members of the public on the draft document NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 2.
FEMA seeks comment on the draft guidance, which is available online at
NRC Authorization Acts of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-295) and 1982-1983 (Pub. L. 97-415); Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended, Titles II and VI, Sections 201 and 611, 42 U.S.C. 5131 and 5196; Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended, Title VI, Chapter 1, Subchapter V, Sections 503 and 504, 6 U.S.C. 313 and 314; Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006, Title V, Section 612, 6 U.S.C. 314a; Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations for 1999, 42 U.S.C. 5196e; Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, Title VI, Sections 602, 642, 643, and 644, 6 U.S.C. 701, 742, 743, and 744; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978; E.O. 12241, as amended; E.O. 12127, as amended. E.O. 12148, as amended; E.O. 12657, as amended; FEMA's regulations in Title 44, Chapter I, Parts 350-354 of the CFR.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until June 29, 2015. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please contact us at: USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Laura Dawkins, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377. Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402-3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free title V information line at 800-927-7588.
In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in
Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, and suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.
Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to: Ms. Theresa M. Ritta, Chief Real Property Branch, the Department of Health and Human Services, Room 5B-17, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (301)-443-2265 (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.
For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.
For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.
Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Ann Marie Oliva at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the
For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availibility.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, and the Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service have prepared Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments (LUPA) and Final Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for planning units in Wyoming, Lewistown (Montana), Northwest Colorado, and North Dakota. There are four separate Final EISs being conducted in the Rocky Mountain Region and this notice announces the availability of all four.
BLM planning regulations state that any person who meets the conditions as described in the regulations may protest the BLM's and Forest Service's Proposed LUP/Final EIS. A person who meets the conditions and files a protest must file the protest within 30 days of the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability in the
Copies of the Wyoming, Lewistown, Northwest Colorado, and North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed LUPAs/Final EISs have been sent to affected Federal, State and local government agencies, tribal governments, and to other stakeholders and members of the public who have requested copies. Copies of the Proposed LUPAs/Final EISs are available for public inspection at the addresses listed in the
All protests must be in writing and mailed to one of the following addresses:
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 individuals 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 and Forest Service prepared the Wyoming and Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs and EISs. The Lewistown and North Dakota EISs were prepared solely by the BLM because there were no National Forest System lands involved. All four of these Proposed LUPAs/Final EISs address a range of alternatives focused on specific conservation measures across the range of the Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG). All four of these EISs are part of a total of 15 separate EISs that make up the BLM and Forest Service National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy. These four EISs will amend the following BLM Resource Management Plans (RMPs) and Forest Service Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) in the Rocky Mountain Region:
Management decisions made as a result of these Proposed LUPAs/Final EISs will apply only to BLM-administered and National Forest System lands in the planning area. The planning areas for all four EISs includes approximately 56.3 million acres of BLM, National Park Service, Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, State, local, and private lands located in 17 Wyoming counties (Albany, Campbell, Carbon, Converse, Crook, Fremont, Goshen, Laramie, Lincoln, Natrona, Niobrara, Platte, Sublette, Sweetwater, Teton, Uinta, and Weston), 10 Colorado counties (Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Jackson, Larimer, Mesa, Moffat, Rio Blanco, Routt, and Summit), five Montana counties (Petroleum, Fergus, Judith Basin, Chouteau, and Meagher), and three North Dakota counties (Bowman, Slope, and Golden Valley). The decision area for these Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EISs is defined as those BLM-admistered and National Forest System lands and Federal mineral estate within the following habitat management categories:
• Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA)—Areas identified as having the highest conservation value for maintaining sustainable GRSG populations; includes breeding, late brood-rearing, and winter concentration areas.
• Linkage Habitat (applicable to Northwest Colorado only)—Areas identified as broader regions of connectivity important to facilitate the movement of GRSG and maintain ecological processes.
• General Habitat Management Area (GHMA)—Areas of seasonal or year-round GRSG habitat outside of PHMAs.
The Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the Wyoming, Northwest Colorado, Lewistown, and North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs was published in the
Comments on the Draft LUP Amendments/EISs received from the public and internal BLM and Forest Service review were considered and incorporated, as appropriate, into the Proposed Plan.
The alternatives presented in Proposed LUPAs/Final EISs are described below:
• Alternative A would retain the current management goals, objectives and direction specified in the existing BLM RMPs and the Forest Service LRMPs.
• Alternative B is based on the conservation measures developed by the National Technical Team (NTT) planning effort in Washington Office Instructional Memorandum (IM) Number 2012-044. As directed in the IM, the conservation measures developed by the NTT must be considered and analyzed, as appropriate, through the land use planning process and NEPA by all BLM state and field offices that contain occupied GRSG habitat. Most management actions included in Alternative B would be applied to PHMAs.
• Alternative C is based on a citizen groups' recommended alternative. This alternative emphasizes improvement and protection of habitat for GRSG and is applied to all occupied GRSG habitat. Alternative C would limit commodity development in areas of occupied GRSG habitat, and would close or designate portions of the planning area to some land uses.
• Alternative D, which was identified as the Preferred Alternative in the Draft EIS, balances opportunities to use and develop the planning area and ensures protection of GRSG habitat based on scoping comments and input from Cooperating Agencies involved in the alternatives development process. Protective measures would be applied to GRSG habitat.
• The Proposed LUPA incorporates guidance from specific State Conservation strategies, as well as additional management based on the NTT recommendations. This alternative emphasizes management of GRSG seasonal habitats and maintaining habitat connectivity to support population objectives. For the Wyoming Proposed LUPA, this guidance is consistent with guidelines provided in the Governor's Sage-Grouse Implementation Team's Core Population Area strategy and the Governor's Executive Order (WY E.O. 2011-05).
The BLM and Forest Service received approximately 3,500 substantive comments, contained in 39,000 submissions during the Draft EISs' comment periods. Based on comments received during the NEPA process, the following topics were frequently identified:
• General (Process/Policy);
• Lands and Realty;
• Livestock Grazing;
• Minerals and Energy;
• Predation;
• Recreation;
• Socioeconomic;
• Special Management Area Designations;
• Special Status Species (Including GRSG);
• Travel and Access Management;
• Vegetation;
• Wildland Fire Management;
• Wildlife and Fisheries.
For the Wyoming GRSG Proposed LUPA/Final EIS, the BLM and Forest Service conducted six public meetings on the Draft EIS. These meetings were held in Casper, Douglas, Laramie, Pinedale, Rawlins and Rock Springs, Wyoming during February 2014. For the Northwest Colorado GRSP Proposed LUPA/Final EIS, the BLM and Forest Service conducted four public meetings on the Draft EIS. These meetings were held in Walden, Lakewood, Silt, and Craig, Colorado during October 2013. For the Lewistown GRSG Proposed LUPA/Final EIS, the BLM conducted two public meetings on the Draft EIS. These meetings were held in Lewistown and Winnett, Montana during December 2013. For the North Dakota GRSG Proposed LUPA/Final EIS, the BLM conducted one public meeting in Bowman, North Dakota on October 22, 2013. Comments on the Draft LUPAs/Draft EISs received from the public and internal BLM and Forest Service review were carefully considered and incorporated as appropriate into the proposed LUPAs/Final EISs. The BLM and Forest Service, via the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Team, will develop a Regional Mitigation Strategy to guide the application of the mitigation hierarchy to address impacts within that Zone. The Regional Mitigation Strategy should consider any State-level GRSG mitigation guidance that is consistent with the requirements. The Regional Mitigation Strategy will be developed in a transparent manner, based on the best science available and standardized metrics.
Instructions for filing a protest with the Director of the BLM regarding the Proposed LUPAs/Final EISs may be found in the “Dear Reader” Letter of the Proposed LUPAs/Final EISs and at 43 CFR 1610.5-2. All protests must be in writing and mailed to the appropriate address, as set forth in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your protest, you should be aware that your entire protest—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your protest to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
36 CFR 219.59, 40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2; 43 CFR 1610.5
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Miles City Field Office planning area and by this notice is announcing its availability.
BLM planning regulations state that any person who meets the conditions as described in the regulations may protest the BLM's Proposed RMP/Final EIS. A person who meets the conditions and files a protest must file the protest within 30 days of the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its notice of availability in the
Copies of the Miles City Field Office Proposed RMP/Final EIS have been sent to affected Federal, State, and local government agencies, tribal governments, and to other stakeholders and members of the public who have requested copies. Copies of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS are available for public inspection at the following locations:
Interested persons may also review the Proposed RMP/Final EIS on the Internet at:
All protests must be in writing and mailed to one of the following addresses:
Mary Bloom, Miles City RMP Team Leader, telephone: 406-233-2800; address: 111 Garryowen Road, Miles City, MT 59301; email:
The planning area includes lands within the BLM Miles City Field Office's administrative boundaries in the following Montana counties: Carter, Custer, Daniels, Dawson, Fallon, Garfield, McCone, Powder River, Prairie, Richland, Roosevelt, Rosebud, Sheridan, Treasure, Wibaux and portions of Big Horn and Valley. The planning area includes all lands, regardless of jurisdiction, totaling approximately 25.8 million acres; however, the BLM will only make decisions on lands that fall under the
Comments on the Draft RMP/EIS were considered and incorporated as appropriate into the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, which analyzes five alternatives:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
As modified, Alternative E is now presented as the Miles City Proposed RMP in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The Proposed RMP/Final EIS would provide comprehensive, long-range decisions for the use and management of resources in the planning area administered by the BLM and focus on the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. Alternative E generally allows resource use if the activity can be conducted in a manner that conserves physical, biological, heritage and visual resources. Alternative E allocates land as Special Recreation Management Areas (eight) and ACECs (eighteen) and emphasizes moderate constraints on resource uses to reduce impacts to resource values. Additionally, Alternative E applies a no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulation to oil and gas leasing proposed in riparian/wetland systems and aquatic habitats and a controlled surface use (CSU) stipulation within 300 feet of riparian and wetland areas. Alternative E increases, over existing management, conservation within Greater Sage-Grouse habitats.
The Proposed RMP/Final EIS, Alternative E, includes ACEC designation for the following areas (all resource use limitations are subject to valid existing rights):
• Ash Creek Divide (7,921 acres), Bug Creek (3,837 acres), Hell Creek (19,373 acres), and Sand Arroyo (9,052 acres) ACECs would continue to be designated and managed as ACECs. Management actions proposed for these significant paleontological areas are: Mineral material sales and permits would be closed, oil and gas leasing would be allowed with an NSO stipulation, geophysical exploration would not be allowed, rights-of-way (ROWs) would be allowed in the Hell Creek ACEC and avoided in the Ash Creek Divide, Bug Creek and Sand Arroyo ACECs, geothermal leasing would be closed, and management would be per visual resource management (VRM) Classes II through III.
• Big Sheep Mountain ACEC (363 acres) would continue to be designated and managed as an ACEC. Management actions proposed for this significant cultural resource site are: Mineral material sales and permits would be closed, oil and gas leasing would be allowed with an NSO stipulation, geophysical exploration would not be allowed, geothermal leasing would be closed, the area would be managed as a ROW avoidance area, livestock grazing would be allowed, and management would be per VRM Class II.
• Hoe ACEC (145 acres) would continue to be designated and managed as an ACEC. Management actions proposed for this significant cultural resource site are: Mineral material sales and permits would be closed, oil and gas leasing would be allowed with an NSO stipulation, geophysical exploration would not be allowed, the area would be managed as a ROW avoidance area, geothermal leasing would be closed, 19 acres of the ACEC would be closed to livestock grazing, and management would be per VRM Class II.
• Jordan Bison Kill ACEC (160 acres) would continue to be designated and managed as an ACEC. Management actions proposed for this significant cultural resource site are: Mineral material sales and permits would be closed, oil and gas leasing would be allowed with an NSO stipulation, geophysical exploration would not be allowed, the area would be managed as a ROW avoidance area, geothermal leasing would be closed, and management would be per VRM Class II.
• Powder River Depot ACEC (1,401 acres) would continue to be managed and designated as an ACEC. Management actions proposed for this significant cultural resource site are: Mineral material sales and permits would be closed, oil and gas leasing would be allowed with an NSO stipulation, geophysical exploration would not be allowed, the area would be managed as a ROW avoidance area, geothermal leasing would be closed, livestock grazing would be excluded on 19 acres of the ACEC, and management would be per VRM Class I (Terry Badlands WSA overlap) and II (remainder of the ACEC).
• Seline ACEC (80 acres) would continue to be designated and managed as an ACEC. Management actions proposed for this significant cultural resource site are: Mineral material sales and permits would be closed, oil and gas leasing would be allowed with an NSO stipulation, geophysical exploration would not be allowed, the area would be managed as a ROW avoidance area, geothermal leasing would be closed, and management would be per VRM Class II.
• Battle Butte Battlefield ACEC would increase in size from 121 acres to 320 acres and continue to be designated and managed as an ACEC. Management actions proposed for this significant cultural resource site are: Mineral material sales and permits would be closed, oil and gas leasing would be allowed with an NSO stipulation, geophysical exploration would not be allowed, ROWs would be excluded, and management would be per VRM Class II.
• Reynolds Battlefield ACEC would increase in size from 324 acres to 922 acres and would continue to be designated and managed as an ACEC. Management actions proposed for this significant cultural resource site are: Mineral material sales and permits would be closed, oil and gas leasing would be allowed with an NSO stipulation, geophysical exploration would not be allowed, the area would be managed as a ROW avoidance area, and management would be per VRM Class II.
• Finger Buttes ACEC (1,520 acres) would continue to be designated and managed as an ACEC. Management actions proposed for this significant scenic area are: Mineral material sales and permits would be closed, oil and gas leasing would be allowed with an NSO stipulation, geophysical exploration would not be allowed, the area would be managed as a ROW avoidance area, geothermal leasing would be closed, and management would be per VRM Class II.
• Smoky Butte ACEC would decrease in size from 80 to 40 acres and would continue to be designated and managed as an ACEC. Management actions proposed for this significant geologic area are: Mineral material sales and permits would be closed, oil and gas leasing would be allowed with an NSO stipulation, geophysical exploration would be allowed, OHV use would be limited to existing roads and trails, ROWs would be allowed, and management would be per VRM Class III.
• Cedar Creek Battlefield (1,022 public surface acres) would be designated an ACEC. This significant battlefield would be managed to enhance and protect cultural resources. Management actions proposed for this area are: Mineral material sales and permits would be closed, oil and gas leasing would be allowed with a NSO stipulation, geophysical exploration would be not be allowed, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be limited to existing roads and trails, the area would be managed as a ROW avoidance area, and management would be per VRM Class II.
• Flat Creek (339 acres) would be designated an ACEC. Management actions proposed for this significant paleontological area are: Mineral material sales and permits would be closed, oil and gas leasing would be allowed with an NSO stipulation, geophysical exploration would not be allowed, and the area would be managed as a ROW avoidance area. Flat Creek would be managed per VRM Class III.
• Powderville (9,518 acres) would be designated an ACEC. Management actions proposed for this significant paleontological area are: Mineral material sales and permits would be closed, oil and gas leasing would be allowed with an NSO stipulation, geophysical exploration would not be allowed, OHV use would be limited to existing roads and trails, and the area would be managed as a ROW avoidance area. The Powderville area would be managed per VRM Classes II and III.
• Long Medicine Wheel (179 acres) would be designated an ACEC. Management actions proposed for this significant cultural resource site are: Mineral material sales and permits would be closed, oil and gas leasing would be allowed with an NSO stipulation, geophysical exploration would not be allowed, ROWs would be excluded, and management would be per VRM Class II.
• The Walstein area (1,519 acres) would be designated an ACEC. Management actions proposed for this significant cultural and paleontological area are: Mineral material sales and permits would be closed, oil and gas leasing would be allowed with an NSO stipulation, geophysical exploration would not be allowed, OHV use would be closed, the area would be managed as a ROW avoidance area, and management would be per VRM Class II.
The Proposed RMP/Final EIS does not adopt the following nominated ACECs: Black-footed Ferret, Howrey Island, Piping Plover and Yonkee.
The Miles City Field Office Proposed RMP/Final EIS is one of a total of 15 separate EISs that make up the BLM and Forest Service National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy. Greater-Sage Grouse habitat within the planning area consists of:
• Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA)—Areas identified as having the highest conservation value for maintaining sustainable greater sage-grouse populations; include breeding, late brood-rearing, and winter concentration areas.
• General Habitat Management Area (GHMA)—Areas of seasonal or year-round habitat outside of PHMA.
Alternative E supports management of greater sage-grouse seasonal habitats and maintaining habitat connectivity to achieve population objectives. Alternative E would limit or eliminate new surface disturbance in PHMA, while minimizing disturbance in GHMA.
The BLM and Forest Service, via the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Team, will develop a Regional Mitigation Strategy to guide the application of the mitigation hierarchy to address impacts within that Zone. The Regional Mitigation Strategy should consider any State-level greater sage-grouse mitigation guidance that is consistent with the requirements. The Regional Mitigation Strategy will be developed in a transparent manner, based on the best science available and standardized metrics. Instructions for filing a protest with the Director of the BLM regarding the Proposed RMP/Final EIS may be found in the “Dear Reader” letter of the Miles City Field Office Proposed RMP/Final EIS and at 43 CFR 1610.5-2. All protests must be in writing and mailed to the appropriate address, as set forth in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your protest, you should be aware that your entire protest—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your protest to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2, 43 CFR 1610.5.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the South Dakota Field Office and by this notice is announcing its availability.
BLM planning regulations state that any person who meets the conditions as described in the regulations may protest the BLM's Proposed RMP/Final EIS. A person who meets the conditions and files a protest must file the protest within 30 days of the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its notice of availability in the
Copies of the South Dakota Field Office Proposed RMP/Final EIS have been sent to affected Federal, State, and local government agencies, tribal governments and to other stakeholders and members of the public. Copies of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS are available for public inspection at the following locations:
• BLM, South Dakota Field Office, 310 Roundup Street, Belle Fourche, SD 57717.
• BLM, Montana/Dakota BLM State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101.
• BLM, Meade County Courthouse, 1300 Sherman Street, Sturgis, SD 57785.
• USFS, Fort Pierre National Grasslands, 1020 N. Deadwood Street, Pierre, SD 57532.
• USFS, Wall Ranger District, 708 Main Street, Wall, SD 57790.
Copies of the Proposed RMP/EIS may also be viewed on the internet at
All protests must be in writing and mailed to one of the following addresses:
Regular Mail: BLM Director (210), Attention: Protest Coordinator, P.O. Box 71383, Washington, DC 20024-1383.
Overnight Delivery: BLM Director (210), Attention: Protest Coordinator, 20 M Street SE., Room 2134LM, Washington, DC 20003.
Mitch Iverson, RMP Project Manager, telephone: 605-892-7008; or Lori (Chip) Kimball, BLM South Dakota Field Manager, telephone: 605-892-7000; address: 310 Roundup Street, Belle Fourche, SD 57717; email:
The planning area includes lands within the BLM South Dakota Field Office administrative boundaries which includes all lands, regardless of jurisdiction, in the State of South Dakota, however, the BLM will only make decisions on lands that fall under the BLM's jurisdiction. The BLM administers 274,239 acres of public land surface and approximately 1.72 million acres of federal mineral estate. Over 98 percent of the BLM-administered surface and Federal mineral estate in the decision area is located in western South Dakota. Counties with substantial amounts of BLM-administered surface or mineral estate (over 1 percent of the county land base), include Butte, Custer, Fall River, Haakon, Harding, Lawrence, Meade, Pennington, Perkins, and Stanley counties in western South Dakota. Other counties with small amounts of BLM-administered surface or federal minerals (less than 1 percent of the county land base), include Bennett, Bon Homme, Brule, Campbell, Charles Mix, Clark, Clay, Corson, Dewey, Edmunds, Faulk, Gregory, Hand, Hughes, Hyde, Jackson, Jones, Lyman, Marshall, McPherson, Mellette, Potter, Sully, Tripp, Walworth, Yankton, and Ziebach counties in South Dakota. An updated inventory of lands with wilderness characteristics was completed for the planning area and data from the inventory was analyzed in the Draft RMP/EIS. The revised RMP will replace the South Dakota RMP of 1986, as amended, and provide the South Dakota Field Office with an updated framework in which to administer the BLM-managed public lands in the planning area.
The formal scoping period began with the publication of the Notice of Intent (NOI) in the
The issues raised during scoping included energy development, vegetation management, wildlife habitat, special status species management, Greater Sage-Grouse, travel, access, commercial uses, land tenure adjustments, visual resource management, and climate change. The BLM invited local, State, Federal, and tribal representatives to participate as cooperating agencies on the South Dakota RMP/EIS.
The Proposed RMP/Final EIS includes a range of management actions within four management alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative. These alternatives address the goals, management challenges, and issues raised during scoping.
The four alternatives analyzed are:
1. Alternative A: Continues existing management practices (No-Action Alternative).
2. Alternative B: Emphasizes commercial resource development and use while providing adequate levels of resource protection.
3. Alternative C: Emphasizes conservation of natural resources while providing for compatible development and use.
4. Alternative D (Proposed): Provides development opportunities and conserves high value and sensitive resources.
The South Dakota Field Office has identified Alternative D as the Proposed RMP. Alternative D supports management of greater sage-grouse seasonal habitats and maintaining habitat connectivity to achieve population objectives.
Two ACECs are currently designated in the existing South Dakota RMP and were re-evaluated and addressed in this Proposed RMP/Final EIS. All alternatives (including the Proposed Plan) would propose to maintain the two existing ACECs, as summarized below:
Fort Meade Recreation Area ACEC (6,574 acres):
• Relevant and Important Values: Historical and archeological.
• Limitations on the Following Uses: Closed to leasable and salable minerals, closed to geophysical exploration, recommended for withdrawal from appropriation under the mining laws.
• Other Restrictions: Right-of-way (ROW) exclusion area except in designated ROW corridors, motorized vehicle use limited to designated roads and trails, snowmobiles or machines specifically equipped to travel over snow prohibited, closed to construction of new roads except rerouting of existing roads to address resource impacts or safety, and the continued designation as a back country byway of
Fossil Cycad ACEC (320 acres):
• Relevant and Important Values: Paleontological.
• Proposed Use Limitations: Closed to fluid minerals within the ACEC, closed to salable Federal minerals, sale of forest products not be allowed, collection of fossils without a BLM permit not allowed, and locatable Federal minerals recommended for withdrawal from appropriation under the mining laws.
• Other Restrictions: ROW exclusion area.
The South Dakota Field Office Proposed RMP/Final EIS is one of a total of 15 separate EISs that make up the BLM and Forest Service National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy. Greater-Sage Grouse habitat within the planning area consists of:
• Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA)—Areas identified as having the highest conservation value for maintaining sustainable greater sage-grouse populations; include breeding, late brood-rearing, and winter concentration areas.
• General Habitat Management Area (GHMA)—Areas of seasonal or year-round habitat outside of PHMA.
Alternative D supports management of greater sage-grouse seasonal habitats and maintaining habitat connectivity to achieve population objectives. Alternative D would limit or eliminate new surface disturbance in PHMA, while minimizing disturbance in GHMA.
The Proposed Plan provides for 127,735 acres of Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs.
The BLM and Forest Service, via the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Team, will develop a Regional Mitigation Strategy to guide the application of the mitigation hierarchy to address impacts within that Zone. The Regional Mitigation Strategy should consider any State-level greater sage-grouse mitigation guidance that is consistent with the requirements. The Regional Mitigation Strategy will be developed in a transparent manner, based on the best science available and standardized metrics. Development of additional regional mitigation strategies for other resource programs may occur for implementation level decisions.
Instructions for filing a protest with the Director of the BLM regarding the Proposed RMP/Final EIS may be found in the “Dear Reader” Letter of the South Dakota Proposed RMP/Final EIS and at 43 CFR 1610.5-2. All protests must be in writing and be mailed to the appropriate address, as set forth in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised 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 from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2, 43 CFR 1610.5
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP)/Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Buffalo Field Office planning area and by this notice is announcing its availability.
The BLM planning regulations state that any person who meets the conditions as described in the regulations may protest the BLM's Proposed RMP/Final EIS. A person who meets the conditions and files a protest must file the protest within 30 days of the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its notice of availability in the
Copies of the Buffalo Proposed RMP/Final EIS have been sent to affected Federal, State, and local government agencies, tribal governments, and to other stakeholders and members of the public. Copies of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS are available for public inspection at the following locations:
• The BLM, Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, WY 82003
• The BLM, High Plains District Office, 2987 Prospector Drive, Casper, WY 82604
• The BLM, Buffalo Field Office, 1425 Fort Street, Buffalo, WY 82834
Interested persons may also review the Proposed RMP/Final EIS on the Internet at
All protests must be in writing and mailed to one of the following addresses:
Regular Mail: BLM Director (210), Attention: Protest Coordinator, P.O. Box 71383, Washington, DC 20024-1383.
Overnight Delivery: BLM Director (210), Attention: Protest Coordinator, 20 M Street SE., Room 2134LM, Washington, DC 20003.
Thomas Bills, Buffalo RMP Team Leader; The BLM Buffalo Field Office, 1425 Fort Street, Buffalo, WY 82834, by telephone 307-684-1133, or by email
The planning area includes lands within the BLM Buffalo Field Office's administrative boundaries, including all of Campbell, Johnson, and Sheridan counties in Wyoming. The planning area includes all lands, regardless of jurisdiction, totaling approximately 7.35 million acres; however, the BLM will only make decisions on lands that fall under the BLM's jurisdiction. Lands within the Planning Area under the BLM's jurisdiction make up the Decision Area. The Decision Area consists of BLM-administered surface, totaling approximately 782,000 acres, and Federal mineral estate, totaling
Comments on the Draft RMP/Draft EIS were considered and incorporated as appropriate into the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, which analyzes four alternatives:
A.
B.
C.
D.
As modified, Alternative D has been identified as the Proposed Buffalo RMP in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The Proposed RMP would provide comprehensive, long-range decisions for the use and management of resources in the planning area administered by the BLM and focus on the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. Alternative D generally allows resource use if the activity can be conducted in a manner that conserves physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources. Alternative D allocates land as Special Recreation Management Areas (seven) and ACECs (two) and emphasizes moderate constraints on resource uses to reduce impacts to resource values.
Under Alternative D, the BLM manages the suitable segment of the Middle Fork Powder River to protect and/or enhance its free-flowing condition, outstandingly remarkable values, and tentative classification until such time that Congress designates the river or releases the river for other uses. If released by Congress for other uses, the river segment would be managed to retain its free-flowing condition and identified outstandingly remarkable values. Similarly, this alternative manages wilderness study areas to protect wilderness characteristics until such time that Congress designates the areas as wilderness or releases them for other uses. If released by Congress for other uses, the wilderness study areas would be managed to emphasize healthy ecosystems, opportunities for solitude, and primitive recreation. Additionally, Alternative D would apply a controlled surface use (CSU) stipulation to any mineral lease within 500 feet of riparian/wetland systems and aquatic habitats.
The Proposed Plan, Alternative D of the Final EIS, includes ACEC designation for the following areas:
• Pumpkin Buttes (1,733 acres). Value: Cultural resources. Proposed management would prohibit surface-disturbing activities not compatible with the area's values including a No Surface Occupancy stipulation for new fluid mineral leases; recommending withdrawal from locatable mineral entry; excluding rights-of-way (ROWs); and closing the area to motorized vehicles.
• Welch Ranch (1,116 acres). Values: visual resources, wildlife resources, and presence of a natural hazard. Proposed management would prohibit all surface-disturbing activities not compatible with the area's values including closing the area to all forms of mineral leasing and development, including solid minerals; recommending withdrawal from locatable mineral entry and excluding ROWs. Travel is limited to administrative use on designated routes.
The Proposed RMP does not adopt the following ACECs: Burnt Hollow, Cantontment Reno, Dry Creek/Petrified Tree, Fortification Creek, Hole in the Wall, and Sagebrush Ecosystem.
The Buffalo Proposed RMP/Final EIS is one of a total of 15 separate EISs that make up the BLM and Forest Service National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy. Greater-Sage Grouse habitat within the planning area consists of:
• Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA)—Areas identified as having the highest conservation value for maintaining sustainable greater sage-grouse populations; include breeding, late brood-rearing, and winter concentration areas.
• General Habitat Management Area (GHMA)—Areas of seasonal or year-round habitat outside of PHMA.
Alternative D supports management of greater sage-grouse seasonal habitats and maintaining habitat connectivity to achieve population objectives. Alternative D would limit or eliminate new surface disturbance in PHMA, while minimizing disturbance in GHMA. Alternative D is also consistent with guidelines provided in the Governor's Sage-Grouse Implementation Team's Core Population Area strategy and the Governor's Executive Order (WY EO 2011-05).
The BLM and Forest Service, via the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Team, will develop a Regional Mitigation Strategy to guide the application of the mitigation hierarchy to address impacts within that Zone. The Regional Mitigation Strategy should consider any State-level greater sage-grouse mitigation guidance that is consistent with the requirements. The Regional Mitigation Strategy will be developed in a transparent manner, based on the best science available and standardized metrics.
Instructions for filing a protest with the Director of the BLM regarding the Proposed RMP/Final EIS may be found in the “Dear Reader” Letter of the Buffalo Proposed RMP/Final EIS and at 43 CFR 1610.5-2. All protests must be in writing and mailed to the appropriate address, as set forth in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your protest, you should be aware that your entire protest—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your protest to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2, 43 CFR 1610.5
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, and the Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) have prepared Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments (LUPA) and Final Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for planning units in Idaho, Southwestern Montana, Nevada, Northeastern California, Oregon, and Utah. There are four separate Final EISs being conducted in the Great Basin Region and this notice announces the availability of all four.
BLM planning regulations state that any person who meets the conditions as described in the regulations may protest the BLM's and Forest Service's Proposed LUP/Final EIS. A person who meets the conditions and files a protest must file the protest within 30 days of the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability in the
Copies of the Idaho and Southwestern Montana, Nevada and Northeastern California, Oregon, and Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed LUPAs/Final EISs have been sent to affected Federal, State and local government agencies, tribal governments, and to other stakeholders and members of the public who have requested copies. Copies of the Proposed LUPAs/Final EISs are available for public inspecton at the addresses listed in the
All protests must be in writing and mailed to one of the following addresses:
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 individuals 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 and Forest Service prepared the Idaho and Southwestern Montana, Nevada and Northeastern California, and Utah Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs and EISs. The Oregon LUPA/EIS was prepared solely by the BLM because there were no National Forest System lands involved. All four of these Proposed LUPAs/Final EISs address a range of alternatives focused on specific conservation measures across the range of the Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG). All four of these EISs are part of a total of 15 separate EISs that make up the BLM and Forest Service National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy. These four EISs will amend the following BLM Resource Management Plans (RMPs) and Management Framework Plans (MFPs) and Forest Service Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) in the Great Basin Region:
Management decisions made as a result of these Proposed LUPAs/Final EISs will apply only to BLM-administered and National Forest System lands in the planning area. The planning areas for all four EISs includes approximately 194.0 million acres of BLM, National Park Service, Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, State, tribal, local, and private lands located in 28 Idaho counties (Ada, Adams, Bear Lake, Bingham, Blaine, Bonneville, Butte, Camas, Caribou, Cassia, Clark, Custer, Elmore, Fremont, Gem, Gooding, Jefferson, Jerome, Lemhi, Lincoln, Madison, Minidoka, Oneida Owyhee, Payette, Power, Twin Falls, and Washington), 7 Montana counties (Montana, Beaverhead, Deer Lodge, Fremont, Clark, Madison, and Silver Bow), 16 Nevada counties (Carson City, Churchill, Douglas, Elko, Esmeralda, Eureka, Humboldt, Lander, Lincoln, Lyon, Mineral, Nye, Pershing, Storey, Washoe, and White Pine), 5 California counties (Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Siskiyou, and Sierra), 8 Oregon counties (Baker, Crook, Deschutes, Grant, Harney, Lake, Malheur, and Union), 24 Utah counties (Beaver, Box Elder, Cache, Carbon, Daggett, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, Iron, Juab, Kane, Morgan, Piute, Rich, Sanpete, Sevier, Summit, Tooele, Uintah, Utah, Wasatch, Wayne, and Weber), and 2 Wyoming counties (Sweetwater and Uinta). The decision area for these Proposed LUPAs/Final EISs is defined as those BLM-administered and National Forest System lands and Federal mineral estate within the following habitat management categories:
• Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA)—Areas identified as having the highest conservation value for maintaining sustainable GRSG populations; includes breeding, late brood-rearing, and winter concentration areas.
• Important Habitat Management Area (IHMA) (applicable to Idaho only)—Areas identified as having generally moderate to high conservation value habitat and/or populations that provide a management buffer for the PHMA and to connect patches of PHMA.
• General Habitat Management Area (GHMA)—Areas of seasonal or year-round GRSG habitat outside of PHMAs.
The Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the Idaho and Southwestern Montana, Nevada and Northeastern California, Oregon, and Utah Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs was published in the
The alternatives presented in Proposed LUPAs/Final EISs are described below:
• Alternative A would retain the current management goals, objectives and direction specified in the existing BLM RMPs and the Forest Service LRMPs.
• Alternative B is based on the conservation measures developed by the National Technical Team (NTT) planning effort in Washington Office Instructional Memorandum (IM) Number 2012-044. As directed in the IM, the conservation measures developed by the NTT must be considered and analyzed, as appropriate, through the land use planning process and NEPA by all BLM state and field offices that contain occupied GRSG habitat. Most management actions included in Alternative B would be applied to PHMA.
• Alternative C is based on a citizen groups' recommended alternative. This alternative emphasizes improvement and protection of habitat for GRSG and is applied to all occupied GRSG habitat. Alternative C would limit commodity development in areas of occupied GRSG habitat, and would close or designate portions of the planning area to some land uses. The Utah LUPA/Draft EIS combined this alternative with Alternative F (discussed below).
• Alternative D, which was identified as the Preferred Alternative in the Draft EIS, balances opportunities to use and develop the planning area and protects GRSG habitat based on scoping comments and input from Cooperating Agencies involved in the alternatives development process. Protective measures would be applied to GRSG habitat.
• Alternative E is the alternative provided by the State or Governor's offices for inclusion and analysis in the EISs. It incorporates guidance from specific State Conservation strategies and emphasizes management of greater sage-grouse seasonal habitats and maintaining habitat connectivity to support population objectives. This alternative was identified as a co-Preferred Alternative in the Idaho and Southwestern Montana Draft EIS.
• Alternative F is also based on a citizen group recommended alternative. This alternative emphasizes improvement and protection of habitat for GRSG and defines different restrictions for PHMA and GHMA. Alternative F would limit commodity development in areas of occupied GRSG habitat, and would close or designate portions of the planning area to some land uses. This alternative does not apply to the Utah sub-regional planning effort, as it was combined with Alternative C.
• The Proposed LUPA incorporates guidance from specific State Conservation strategies, as well as
The BLM and Forest Service received approximately 4,990 substantive comments, contained in 74,240 submissions during the four Draft EISs' comment periods. Based on comments received during the NEPA process, the following comment topics were frequently identified:
• General (Process/Policy);
• Lands and Realty;
• Livestock Grazing;
• Minerals and Energy;
• Predation;
• Recreation;
• Socioeconomic;
• Special Management Area Designations;
• Special Status Species (Including GRSG);
• Travel and Access Management;
• Vegetation;
• Wildland Fire Management;
• Wildlife and Fisheries.
For the Idaho and Southwestern Montana GRSG Proposed LUPA/Final EIS, the BLM and Forest Service conducted seven public meetings. These meetings were held in Murphy, Idaho Falls, Salmon, Pocatello, Twin Falls, and Boise in Idaho and Dillon in Montana during January 2014. For the Nevada and Northeastern California GRSG Proposed LUPA/Final EIS, the BLM and Forest Service conducted seven public meetings. These meetings were held in Cedarville and Susanville, California, and in Reno, Tonopah, Ely, Elko, and Winnemucca, Nevada in early December 2013. For the Oregon GRSG Proposed LUPA/Final EIS, the BLM conducted seven public meetings. These meetings were held in Baker City, Burns, Durkee, Jordan Valley, Lakeview, Ontario and Prineville, Oregon during January 2014. For the Utah GRSG Proposed LUPA/Final EIS, the BLM and Forest Service conducted eight public meetings. These meetings were held in Cedar City, Panguitch, Price, Randolph, Richfield, Salt Lake City, Snowville, and Vernal, Utah during November and December 2013. Comments on the Draft LUPAs/Draft EISs received from the public and internal BLM and Forest Service review were carefully considered and incorporated as appropriate into the proposed LUPAs/Final EISs. The BLM and Forest Service, via the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Team, will develop a Regional Mitigation Strategy to guide the application of the mitigation hierarchy to address impacts within that Zone. The Regional Mitigation Strategy should consider any State-level GRSG mitigation guidance that is consistent with the requirements. The Regional Mitigation Strategy will be developed in a transparent manner, based on the best science available and standardized metrics.
Instructions for filing a protest with the Director of the BLM regarding the Proposed LUPAs/Final EISs may be found in the “Dear Reader” Letter of the Proposed LUPAs/Final EISs and at 43 CFR 1610.5-2. All protests must be in writing and mailed to the appropriate address, as set forth in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your protest, you should be aware that your entire protest—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your protest to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
36 CFR 219.59, 40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2; 43 CFR 1610.5
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Billings planning area, including Pompeys Pillar National Monument, and by this notice is announcing its availability.
The BLM planning regulations state that any person who meets the conditions as described in the regulations may protest the BLM's Proposed RMP/Final EIS. A person who meets the conditions and files a protest must file the protest within 30 days of the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its notice of availability in the
Copies of the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument Proposed RMP/Final EIS have been sent to affected Federal, State, and local government agencies, tribal governments, and to other stakeholders and members of the public. Copies of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS are available for public inspection at the following locations:
• BLM, Montana State Office and Billings Field Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, MT 59101.
Interested persons may also review the Proposed RMP/Final EIS on the Internet at
All protests must be in writing and mailed to one of the following addresses:
Carolyn Sherve-Bybee, Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP Team Leader, telephone: 406-896-5234; address: 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, MT 59101; email:
The planning area includes lands within the BLM Billings Field Office's administrative boundaries, including Carbon, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Wheatland, and Yellowstone Counties in Montana, and portions of Big Horn County, Montana and Big Horn County, Wyoming. The planning area includes all lands, regardless of jurisdiction, totaling approximately 10.37 million acres; however, the BLM will only make decisions on lands that fall under the BLM's jurisdiction. The BLM decision area is comprised of approximately 434,154 acres of the surface estate in the planning area and 889,479 acres of Federal mineral estate. The revised RMP will replace the 1984 Billings RMP, as amended. The Draft RMP/EIS was made available for public review for a 90-day period on March 29, 2013 (78 FR 19291). The Draft RMP/EIS included a series of management actions, within four management alternatives, designed to address management challenges and issues raised during scoping. These included, but were not limited to, trails and travel management, wildlife habitat management including that of the Greater Sage-Grouse, energy development (coal and oil and gas), livestock grazing, recreation, lands with wilderness characteristics, special management areas including Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) and the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range, and management of the cultural and historic resources at Pompeys Pillar National Monument. In accordance with 43 CFR 1610.7-2(b), the Notice of Availability for the Draft RMP/EIS announced a concurrent public comment period on proposed ACECs.
Comments on the Draft RMP/Draft EIS received from the public and internal BLM review were considered and incorporated as appropriate into the Proposed RMP/Final EIS which analyzes four alternatives:
1. Alternative A (No Action): Continues existing management;
2. Alternative B: Emphasizes conservation of natural and cultural resources while providing for compatible development and use;
3. Alternative C: Emphasizes resource development and use while protecting natural and cultural resources; and
4. Alternative D (Proposed): Provides development opportunities and conserves sensitive resources.
As modified, Alternative D is now presented as the Proposed RMP. The Proposed RMP would provide comprehensive, long-range decisions for the use and management of resources in the planning area administered by the BLM and focus on the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. Alternative D allows resource use if the activity can be conducted in a manner that conserves physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources. Alternative D allocates land as Special Recreation Management Areas (nine), Extensive Recreation Management Areas (two), lands with wilderness characteristics (nine), Travel Management Areas (eleven), and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (eleven) and emphasizes moderate constraints on resource uses to reduce impacts to resource values.
Under Alternative D, the BLM manages the suitable segments of Crooked Creek to protect and/or enhance its free-flowing condition, outstandingly remarkable values, and tentative classification until such time that Congress designates the river or releases the river for other uses. If released by Congress for other uses, the river segment would be managed to retain its free-flowing condition and identified outstandingly remarkable values.
The Proposed Plan includes ACEC designations for the following areas:
Pompeys Pillar National Monument ACEC (432 acres).
• Value: Cultural and historic resources. The National Monument (51 acres) and National Historic Landmark (6 acres) are included within the 432 acre ACEC.
• Limitations on the Following Uses: Eighty-three acres designated for rights-of-way (ROW) exclusion and 349 acres for ROW avoidance; land disposals prohibited; OHV use limited to designated roads and trails; 381 acres managed as VRM Class II and 51 acres as VRM Class III; 51 acres closed to fluid mineral leasing and manage 381 acres No Surface Occupancy for fluid mineral leasing; continue the withdrawal for locatable and solid leasable minerals (subject to valid existing rights) on 51 acres and recommend 381 acres for withdrawal from mineral entry; close 432 acres to mineral material sales, close the 432 acres to commercial renewable energy facilities and development; allow livestock grazing temporarily and only as a management tool; close 432 acres to target shooting (hunting allowed on 375 acres); and prohibit scattering of cremains.
Bridger Fossil Area ACEC (577 acres).
• Values: Paleontological resources. The Bridger Fossil Area National Natural Landmark (161 acres) is located entirely within this ACEC.
• Limitations on the Following Uses: Proposed management would prohibit all surface-disturbing activities not compatible with the area's values including closing the area to all forms of mineral leasing and development, including solid minerals; recommending withdrawal from locatable mineral entry, excluding ROWs, and prohibiting renewable energy development. The ACEC managed as a VRM Class II area. Travel limited to designated roads and trails.
Castle Butte ACEC (184 acres).
• Values: Cultural resources.
• Limitations on the Following Uses: Proposed management would prohibit renewable energy development, target shooting (for resource concerns), and the scattering of cremains. ROW avoidance area and a VRM Class II area. Animal trapping/traplines prohibited. Travel limited to designated routes.
East Pryor ACEC (11,122 acres).
• Values: Wild horse and wildlife habitat, historical, cultural, and paleontological resources, and special status plant species. The Crooked Creek Natural Area (2,101 acres) and the Crooked Creek National Natural Landmark (300 acres) are located within the ACEC. The 2,101 acres of the Crooked Creek Natural Area are currently withdrawn from mineral entry. The Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range (PMWHR) boundaries overlap most of the ACEC.
• Limitations on the Following Uses: Proposed management would prohibit land disposals, close the area to oil and gas and solid mineral leasing, recommend withdrawal from mineral entry, prohibit renewable energy development and geophysical exploration, close the portions of the ACEC within the PMWHR to livestock grazing except for Bad Pass Trail Allotment (grazing available outside the PMWHR), prohibit target shooting for public safety reasons between Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day weekend in T. 8 S., R. 28 E, (allowed in remainder of ACEC), prohibit the scattering of cremains; motorized vehicle use, including snowmobiles, is limited to designated routes; and limit the issuance of Special Recreation Use Permits (SRPs) and Letters of Authorization to existing SRPs and Letters of Authorization.
Four Dances Natural Area ACEC (784 acres).
• Values: Cultural and historic resources, scenic values, wildlife resources, and presence of a natural hazard.
• Limitations on the Following Uses: This ACEC would be an avoidance area for ROWs; it is currently withdrawn from mineral entry; land disposals, cremains scattering, animal trapping/traplines, and renewable energy development would be prohibited; the ACEC is closed to motorized use; livestock grazing only authorized to meet other resource objectives consistent with ACEC designation; no discharging of firearms within the ACEC; archery hunting allowed if deemed necessary by Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (authorization from BLM required); SPRs initially limited to existing SRPs; closed to horseback riding, hang gliding, rock climbing, and paint ball activities; this is a day use only area and managed as a VRM Class II area.
Grove Creek ACEC (8,251 acres).
• Values: Significant archaeological and traditional cultural values and special status plants.
• Limitations on the Following Uses: The ACEC would be managed as a ROW avoidance area and a VRM Class II area; no land disposals permitted; fluid mineral leasing permitted with a No Surface Occupancy (NSO); locatable minerals and solid leasable minerals recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry; and the scattering of cremains prohibited. Travel limited to designated routes.
Meeteetse Spires ACEC (1,523 acres).
• Values: Scenic values and special status plants.
• Limitations on the Following Uses: The ACEC would be managed as a ROW exclusion area and managed as a VRM Class II area; no land disposals permitted; travel limited to designated routes; plant collecting only allowed for scientific use and range studies only (no collection of special status plant species without a permit); 965 acres closed (no lease) to fluid mineral leasing and recommended for withdrawal to mineral entry; livestock grazing permitted (except for sheep) on 965 acres; scattering of cremains and renewable energy development not permitted.
Petroglyph Canyon ACEC (240 acres).
• Values: Unique cultural resources.
• Limitations on the Following Uses: This ACEC would be managed as a ROW exclusion area, no land disposals permitted; travel limited to designated routes; closed (no lease) to fluid mineral leasing, continue the 240 acre mineral entry withdrawal; closed to renewable energy development; closed to animal trapping/traplines; target shooting not permitted due to resource concerns; and scattering of cremains not permitted.
Pryor Foothills Research Natural Area (RNA) ACEC (2,606 acres).
• Values: Special status plants and rare plant communities and significant historic and cultural values.
• Limitations on the Following Uses: The ACEC would be managed as a ROW avoidance area; no land disposals permitted; travel limited to designated routes; VRM Class II area; plant collecting allowed for scientific use or range studies only (no collection of special status plant species without a permit); the ACEC managed as a NSO within
Stark Site ACEC (799 acres).
• Values: Unique cultural resources.
• Limitations on the Following Uses: The ACEC would be managed as a ROW avoidance area; motorized travel limited to designated routes; managed as a VRM Class II area, recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry; fluid mineral leasing leased with a NSO stipulation, Open to solid mineral leasing with NSO; closed to mineral material sales; closed to target shooting due to resource concerns; and scattering of cremains not permitted.
Weatherman Draw ACEC (12,277 acres).
• Values: Unique cultural values.
• Limitations on the Following Uses: The ACEC would be managed as a ROW exclusion area on 4,986 acres and a ROW avoidance area on 7,291 acres; no land disposals permitted; travel limited to designated routes; the ACEC managed as a VRM Class II area; 4,986 acres closed (no lease) to fluid mineral leasing and 7,291 acres available to fluid mineral leasing with a NSO stipulation; 600 acres are currently withdrawn from mineral entry and 4,386 are recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry; 4,986 acres closed to development of solid leasable minerals and 7,291 acres are open to solid leasable mineral development with NSO; 4,986 acres closed to mineral material sales; the ACEC closed to renewable energy development; animal trapping/traplines prohibited on 4,986 acres; target shooting prohibited in the ACEC due to resource concerns; and the scattering of cremains prohibited.
The Proposed RMP does not adopt the following ACEC: Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat ACEC.
The Proposed RMP is also recommending the following river segments (3.15 miles) as suitable to protect their outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and classification. The following segments would be recommended as suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System:
• Crooked Creek (above fish barrier—1.59 miles) tentative management class would be Wild.
• Crooked Creek (below fish barrier—1.56 miles) tentative management class would be Scenic.
Wild and Scenic River eligible and suitable segments (14.08 miles total) would be managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development within
The Proposed RMP/Final EIS is one of a total of 15 separate EISs that make up the BLM and Forest Service National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy. Greater-Sage Grouse habitat within the planning area consists of:
• Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA)—Areas identified as having the highest conservation value for maintaining sustainable greater sage-grouse populations; include breeding, late brood-rearing, and winter concentration areas.
• General Habitat Management Area (GHMA)—Areas of seasonal or year-round habitat outside of PHMA.
Alternative D supports management of greater sage-grouse seasonal habitats and maintaining habitat connectivity to achieve population objectives. Alternative D would limit or eliminate new surface disturbance in PHMA, while minimizing disturbance in GHMA.
The BLM and Forest Service, via the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Team, will develop a Regional Mitigation Strategy to guide the application of the mitigation hierarchy to address impacts within that Zone. The Regional Mitigation Strategy should consider any State-level greater sage-grouse mitigation guidance that is consistent with the requirements. The Regional Mitigation Strategy will be developed in a transparent manner, based on the best science available and standardized metrics. Development of additional regional mitigation strategies for other resource programs may occur for implementation level decisions.
Instructions for filing a protest with the Director of the BLM regarding the Proposed RMP/Final EIS may be found in the “Dear Reader” Letter of the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument Proposed RMP/Final EIS and at 43 CFR 1610.5-2. All protests must be in writing and mailed to the appropriate address, as set forth in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your protest, you should be aware that your entire protest—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your protest to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2, 43 CFR 1610.5
The Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Cody and Worland Field Offices and by this notice is announcing its availability.
The BLM planning regulations state that any person who meets the conditions as described in the regulations may protest the BLM's Proposed RMP/Final EIS. A person who meets the conditions and files a protest must file the protest within 30 days of the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its notice of availability in the
Copies of the Bighorn Basin Proposed RMP/Final EIS have been sent to affected Federal, State, Tribal, and local Government agencies and to other stakeholders and members of the public. Copies of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS are available for public inspection at:
Interested persons may also review the Proposed RMP/Final EIS on the internet at
Holly Elliott, RMP Project Manager, telephone: 307-347-5193; address: 101 South 23rd Street, Worland, Wyoming 82401; email:
The Planning Area includes lands within the BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices' administrative boundaries, in all of Big Horn, Park, and Washakie counties, and most of Hot Springs County in north-central Wyoming. The Planning Area includes all lands, regardless of jurisdiction, totaling 5.6 million acres; however, the BLM will only make decisions on lands that fall under the BLM's jurisdiction. Lands within the Planning Area under the BLM's jurisdiction make up the Decision Area. The Decision Area consists of BLM-administered surface, totaling 3.2 million acres, and the Federal mineral estate, totaling 4.2 million acres. The revised RMP will replace the Washakie and Grass Creek RMPs in the Worland Field Office, Wyoming, and the Cody RMP in the Cody Field Office, Wyoming.
The Proposed RMP/Final EIS includes a series of management actions, within six management alternatives, designed to address management challenges and issues raised during scoping, including, but not limited to: recreation, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), wildlife habitats, livestock grazing, energy development, air quality and global climate change, and wilderness characteristics. Protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat is analyzed in all alternatives considered. The six alternatives are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the Bighorn Basin RMP/EIS was published in the
Comments on the Draft RMP/EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS received from the public and internal BLM review were considered and incorporated as appropriate into the proposed plan. As modified, Alternative D is now presented as the Proposed Bighorn Basin RMP in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS.
Alternative D generally allows resource use if the activity can be conducted in a manner that conserves physical, biological, heritage and visual resources. Alternative D proposes ACEC designations for:
• Big Cedar Ridge (264 acres): Value(s) of Concern—Paleontological. Proposed Use Limitation(s)—Right-of-way (ROW) exclusion area, no-surface occupancy (NSO) restriction applied to fluid mineral leases, closed to geophysical exploration, closed to mineral material disposals and related exploration and development activities, motorized vehicle use limited to existing roads and trails, and pursue a withdrawal from appropriation under the mining laws.
• Red Gulch Dinosaur Tracksite (1,798 acres): Value(s) of Concern—Paleontological. Proposed Use Limitation(s)—Closed to surface disturbing activities except to enhance public education, heavy equipment restriction on fire suppression activities, motorized vehicle use limited to designated roads and trails, interpretive area closed to livestock grazing, an NSO restriction applied to fluid mineral leases, and pursue a withdrawal from appropriation under the mining laws.
• Sheep Mountain Anticline (13,260 acres): Value(s) of Concern—Geologic, Caves, Cultural and Scenic. Proposed Use Limitation(s)—Motorized vehicle use limited to designated roads and trails, generally closed to surface disturbing activities, unavailable for fluid mineral leasing, and pursue a withdrawal from appropriation under the mining laws.
• Spanish Point Karst (11,854 acres): Value(s) of Concern—Caves, Recreational, Sinking Stream Segments and Water Quality. Proposed Use Limitation(s)—Unavailable for fluid mineral leasing, closed to geophysical exploration, closed to off highway vehicle use, ROW avoidance/mitigation area, and pursue a withdrawal from appropriation under the mining laws.
• Brown/Howe Dinosaur Area (5,521 acres): Value(s) of Concern—Paleontological. Proposed Use Limitation(s)—Closed to mineral material disposals, unavailable for fluid
• Carter Mountain (10,947 acres): Value(s) of Concern—Vegetation, Wildlife, Cultural, Recreational, Special Status Species, Watershed and Soils. Proposed Use Limitation(s)—Heavy equipment restriction on fire suppression activities, ROW avoidance/mitigation area, motorized vehicle use limited to designated roads and trails, closed to surface-disturbing activities on slopes greater than 7 percent, unavailable for fluid mineral leasing, closed to mineral material disposals, and pursue a withdrawal from appropriation under the mining laws.
• Five Springs Falls (163 acres): Value(s) of Concern—Recreational, Scenic, Special Status Species, Geologic and Public Safety. Proposed Use Limitation(s)—Heavy equipment restriction on fire suppression activities, ROW avoidance/mitigation area, climbing not allowed on the cliff that forms the falls, motorized vehicle use limited to designated roads and trails, and unavailable for fluid mineral leasing.
• Little Mountain (21,478 acres): Value(s) of Concern—Caves, Cultural, Paleontological, Scenic, Recreational, Special Status Species, Vegetation and Wildlife. Proposed Use Limitation(s)—Heavy equipment restriction for fire suppression activities, motorized vehicle use limited to designated roads and trails, a ROW avoidance/mitigation area, unavailable for fluid mineral leasing, and pursue a withdrawal from appropriation under the mining laws.
• Upper Owl Creek (13,572 acres): Value(s) of Concern—Cultural, Fish, Recreational, Scenic, Soils, Special Status Species, Vegetation and Wildlife. Proposed Use Limitation(s)—Motorized vehicle use limited to designated roads and trails, closed to surface-disturbing activities, pursue a withdrawal from appropriation under the mining laws for 13,238 acres, ROW avoidance/mitigation area, and unavailable for fluid mineral leasing.
• Clarks Fork Canyon (4,759 acres): Value(s) of Concern—Geologic, Open Space, Recreational, Special Status Species, and Wildlife. Proposed Use Limitation(s)—Close 1,211 acres to motorized vehicle use with the remainder limited to designated roads and trails, closed to surface-disturbing activities, closed to mineral material disposals, closed to geophysical exploration, unavailable for fluid mineral leasing, pursue a withdrawal from appropriation under the mining laws, renewable energy ROW exclusion area, and ROW avoidance/mitigation area.
• Sheep Mountain (25,962 acres): Value(s) of Concern—Special Status Species, Vegetation and Wildlife. Proposed Use Limitation(s)—Motorized vehicle use limited to designated roads and trails, unavailable for fluid mineral leasing, closed to mineral material disposals, pursue a withdrawal from appropriation under the mining laws, closed to surface-disturbing activities, and ROW avoidance/mitigation area.
• Paleocene, Eocene Thermal Maximum (14,913 acres): Value(s) of Concern—Paleontological. Proposed Use Limitation(s)—NSO restriction applied to fluid mineral leases, and closed to mineral material disposals.
The Proposed plan also makes a determination that 20 waterways (92 miles) are not suitable for WSR designation and releases those eligible waterways from further interim protection.
The Bighorn Basin Proposed RMP/Final EIS is one of a total of 15 separate EISs that make up the BLM and Forest Service National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy. Greater-Sage Grouse habitat within the planning area consists of:
• Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA)—Areas identified as having the highest conservation value for maintaining sustainable greater sage-grouse populations; include breeding, late brood-rearing, and winter concentration areas.
• General Habitat Management Area (GHMA)—Areas of seasonal or year-round habitat outside of PHMA.
Alternative D supports management of greater sage-grouse seasonal habitats and maintaining habitat connectivity to achieve population objectives. Alternative D would limit or eliminate new surface disturbance in PHMA, while minimizing disturbance in GHMA. Alternative D is also consistent with guidelines provided in the Governor's Sage-Grouse Implementation Team's Core Population Area strategy and the Governor's Executive Order (WY EO 2011-05).
The BLM and Forest Service, via the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Team, will develop a Regional Mitigation Strategy to guide the application of the mitigation hierarchy to address impacts within that Zone. The Regional Mitigation Strategy should consider any State-level greater sage-grouse mitigation guidance that is consistent with the requirements. The Regional Mitigation Strategy will be developed in a transparent manner, based on the best science available and standardized metrics.
Instructions for filing a protest with the Director of the BLM regarding the Proposed RMP/Final EIS may be found in the “Dear Reader” letter of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS for the Bighorn Basin RMP Revision Project and at 43 CFR 1610.5-2. All protests must be in writing and mailed to the appropriate address, as set forth in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your protest, you should be aware that your entire protest—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your protest to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2, 43 CFR 1610.5
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final
BLM planning regulations state that any person who meets the conditions as described in the regulations may protest the BLM's Proposed RMP/Final EIS. A person who meets the conditions and files a protest must file the protest within 30 days of the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its notice of availability in the
Copies of the HiLine Proposed RMP/Final EIS have been sent to affected Federal, State, and local government agencies, tribal governments, and to other stakeholders and members of the public who have requested copies. Copies of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS are available for public inspection at the following locations:
• The BLM, Montana/Dakotas State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101.
• The BLM, Havre Field Office, 3990 Highway 2 West, Havre, Montana 59501.
• The BLM, Malta Field Office, 501 South 2nd Street, Malta, Montana 59538.
• The BLM, Glasgow Field Office, 5 Lasar Drive, Glasgow, Montana 59230.
Brian Hockett, Planning and Environmental Coordinator, telephone: 406-262-2837; address: 3990 Highway 2 West, Havre, MT 59501; email:
The planning area includes lands within the HiLine District Office's administrative boundaries in the following Montana counties: Blaine, Chouteau, Glacier, Hill, Liberty, Phillips, Toole, and Valley Counties. The Planning area includes all lands, regardless of jurisdiction, totaling approximately 17.6 million acres; however, the BLM will only make decisions on lands that fall under the BLM's jurisdiction. Lands within the Planning Area under the BLM's jurisdiction make up the Decision Area. The Decision Area consists of 2.43 million acres of public land surface and 4.24 million acres of federal mineral estate. These lands and minerals are managed by three BLM Field Offices in Havre, Malta, and Glasgow, Montana, along with the Great Falls Oil and Gas Field Office, which provides oil and gas program support in western, central, and north central Montana. The Proposed RMP will replace the current guidance provided by the West HiLine (1988) and Sweet Grass Hills Amendment (1996) and Judith-Valley-Phillips Resource Management Plans (1994) and land use plan amendments (1996). The Proposed RMP will also manage oil and gas leasing in Phillips and Valley counties, which is currently managed under four Management Framework Plans (MFP): Phillips MFP, Valley MFP, Little Rocky Mountains MFP, and the UL Bend/Zortman MFP.
The BLM published the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the Malta Field Office Draft RMP/EIS in the
Comments on the HiLine Draft RMP/EIS received from the public and internal BLM review were considered and incorporated as appropriate into the Proposed RMP/Final EIS which analyzes five alternatives:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
In accordance with 43 CFR 1610.7-2(b), the Notice of Availability for the Draft RMP/EIS also announced a concurrent public comment period on nominated ACECs. The Proposed RMP/Final EIS, Alternative E, includes ACEC designation for the following areas (all resource use limitations are subject to valid existing rights).
• Relevant and Important Values: Wildlife habitat, natural hazards.
• Limitations on the Following Uses: Solid mineral leasing, mineral material sales, commercial wind energy development.
• Other Restrictions: Avoidance area for rights-of-way (ROWs).
• Relevant and Important Values: Cultural, historic.
• Limitations on the Following Uses: Oil and gas leasing, mineral material sales, commercial wind energy development.
• Other Restrictions: Avoidance area for ROWs.
• Relevant and Important Values: Historic, cultural, scenic, wildlife habitat, natural processes.
• Limitations on the Following Uses: oil and gas leasing, commercial wind energy development.
• Other Restrictions: avoidance area for ROWs.
• Relevant and Important Values: cultural, wildlife habitat.
• Limitations on the Following Uses: oil and gas leasing, solid mineral leasing, mineral material sales, commercial wind energy development.
• Other Restrictions: avoidance area for ROWs.
• Relevant and Important Values: wildlife habitat.
• Limitations on the Following Uses: oil and gas leasing, solid mineral leasing, mineral material sales, commercial wind energy development.
• Other Restrictions: avoidance area for ROWs.
• Relevant and Important Values: historic, cultural.
• Limitations on the Following Uses: oil and gas leasing, solid mineral leasing, mineral material sales, commercial wind energy development.
• Other Restrictions: avoidance area for ROWs.
• Relevant and Important Values: scenic, wildlife habitat, natural processes.
• Limitations on the Following Uses: oil and gas leasing, solid mineral leasing, mineral material sales, commercial wind energy development.
• Other Restrictions: avoidance area for ROWs.
• Relevant and Important Values: geologic, paleontological, natural processes.
• Limitations on the Following Uses: oil and gas leasing, solid mineral leasing, mineral material sales, commercial wind energy development.
• Other Restrictions: avoidance area for ROWs; personal collection of common fossils would not be allowed.
• Relevant and Important Values: scenic, wildlife habitat.
• Limitations on the Following Uses: oil and gas leasing, solid mineral leasing, mineral material sales, commercial wind energy development.
• Other Restrictions: avoidance area for ROWs.
• Relevant and Important Values: natural hazards, public safety.
• Limitations on the Following Uses: commercial wind energy development.
• Other Restrictions: avoidance area for ROWs, closed to all unauthorized vehicle use during reclamation activities.
Two areas are being considered for designation as off-highway vehicle (OHV) use areas. In the Proposed RMP, 40 acres in the Glasgow OHV area would remain open until an alternate site is located, and in the Fresno OHV area 125 acres would be designated as open to OHV use.
The Hiline District Proposed RMP/Final EIS is one of a total of 15 separate EISs that make up the BLM and Forest Service National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy. Greater-Sage Grouse habitat within the planning area consists of:
• Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA)—Areas identified as having the highest conservation value for maintaining sustainable Greater Sage-Grouse populations; include breeding, late brood-rearing, and winter concentration areas.
• General Habitat Management Area (GHMA)—Areas of seasonal or year-round habitat outside of PHMA.
Alternative E identifies 1,006,312 acres as Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs and 426,355 acres as Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs. The latter areas have special management prescriptions to provide high-quality habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse and other sagebrush-dependent species. These PHMAs would be closed to solid mineral leasing, and oil and gas leasing would be subject to a no surface occupancy (NSO) and use stipulation with only limited exceptions, and no waivers or modifications. Both areas would be designated as exclusion areas for wind and solar energy ROWs, and avoidance areas for all other ROWs.
The BLM and Forest Service, via the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Team, will develop a Regional Mitigation Strategy to guide the application of the mitigation hierarchy to address impacts within that Zone. The Regional Mitigation Strategy should consider any State-level greater sage-grouse mitigation guidance that is consistent with the requirements. The Regional Mitigation Strategy will be developed in a transparent manner, based on the best science available and standardized metrics.
Instructions for filing a protest with the Director of the BLM regarding the Proposed RMP/Final EIS may be found in the “Dear Reader” Letter of the HiLine Proposed RMP/Final EIS and at 43 CFR 1610.5-2. All protests must be in writing and mailed to the appropriate address, as set forth in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your protest, you should be aware that your entire protest—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your protest to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2, 43 CFR 1610.5.
National Park Service (NPS), Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (National Park Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the Information Collection (IC) described below. The National Park Service (NPS) sponsors public surveys to provide park managers with information needed for park planning, management, operations and evaluation of performance related to protecting park resources and meeting the needs of the public. In consultation with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of the Interior (DOI), the NPS has developed a Programmatic Review and Clearance Process for NPS-sponsored public surveys. It significantly streamlines the information collection review process. To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This IC is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2015. We may not conduct or sponsor
To ensure that your comments on this IC are considered, we must receive them on or before July 28, 2015.
Please send your comments to Phadrea Ponds, Information Collections Coordinator, National Park Service, 1201 Oakridge Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525 (mail); or
Bret Meldrum, Chief, Social Science Program, National Park Service, 1201 Oakridge Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525-5596 (mail);
The Programmatic Clearance for NPS-Sponsored Surveys applies to surveys designed to furnish usable information to NPS managers and planners concerning park visitors, visitor services, potential park visitors, and residents of communities near parks. This information is intended to provide NPS managers with data that can be used to improve the quality and utility of agency programs, services, and planning efforts. Questions asked under the programmatic review process must show a clear tie to NPS management and planning needs. The programmatic review may only be used for non-controversial surveys that are unlikely to attract or include topics of significant public interest in the programmatic review process.
To qualify for the NPS generic programmatic review process, all information collections must be directly tied to an area managed by the NPS or research that will benefit NPS management efforts. All collections must be reviewed by the NPS and approved by OMB before the survey can be initiated.
We invite comments concerning this IC on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (National Park Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This IC is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2017. We 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.
You must submit comments on or before July 28, 2015.
Send your comments on the IC to Madonna L. Baucum, Information Collection Clearance Officer, National Park Service, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive (Room 2C114, Mail Stop 242), Reston, VA 20192 (mail); or
To request additional information about this IC, contact Pamela Blyth, United States Park Police, 1100 Ohio Drive SW., Washington, DC 20242 (mail); or at
The United States Park Police (USPP) is a unit of the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, with jurisdiction in all National Park Service areas and certain other Federal and State lands. The USPP are highly trained, professional police officers who prevent and detect criminal activity; conduct investigations; apprehend individuals suspected of committing offenses against Federal, State, and local laws; provide protection to the President of the United States and visiting dignitaries; and provide protective services to some of the most recognizable monuments and memorials in the world. Applicants for USPP officer positions must complete and pass a competitive written examination, an oral interview, a medical examination and psychological evaluation, and a battery of physical fitness and agility tests. As part of this application and screening process, the USPP uses the following forms:
The USPP Form TBD “Physician Consent Form” is an optional form used by the applicant to obtain clearance by their personal physician to complete the PEB. The applicant's personal physician uses this form to certify whether or not the applicant is cleared to participate in the Physical Efficiency Battery (PEB) and requests the following information
• Name,
• complete mailing address,
• telephone number, and
• physician's comments.
An applicant's physical fitness is assessed using the PEB. The PEB consists of five measures of physical fitness including: Body composition, determined through subcutaneous fat folds; flexibility, determined by sit and reach; agility, measured by negotiating a time obstacle course; muscular strength, determined with one maximal chest press; and cardiovascular endurance, measured by a timed 1.5 mile walk/run. The applicant may choose to self-certify their ability to complete the PEB by completing the optional USPP Form (TBD) “Physical Efficiency Battery “Waiver” ” which requests the candidate provide the following information as part of the self-certification process:
• Date of last medical evaluation,
• name and address of personal physician,
• purpose of last medical examination,
• identification of any known medical conditions the USPP must be made aware of, and
• documentation to support identified known medical conditions.
Applicants are also required to complete USPP Form (TBD) “Release to Obtain a Credit Report” as part of the application process. Information obtained on this form is used in connection with the applicant's background investigation is used to determine their:
1. Fitness for Federal employment,
2. clearance to perform contractual service for the Federal Government, and/or
3. security clearance or access.
Information collected on the USPP Form (TBD) “Release to Obtain a Credit Report” includes personally identifiable information (PII), to include:
• Full name,
• Social Security Number,
• date of birth,
• current and former home addresses,
• home telephone number,
• current employer's name, and
• current occupation.
The USPP Form (TBD) “Applicant Documentation Form” is an optional form used by applicants to either decline or defer employment with the USPP. The form collects the following PII:
• Name,
• Social Security Number,
• address,
• telephone,
• date and location of written test, and
• reason for declining or deferring employment with the USPP.
USPP Form 1 “United States Park Police Personal History Statement,” also known as the “Blue Book,” is used to collect detailed personal history information from applicants. Investigators verify the information provided to determine an applicant's suitability for a USPP officer position. The information collected includes, but is not limited to:
• Personal background information, including financial data and residence history,
• selective Service information and military data,
• references,
• education and employment information,
• driving record, arrest/conviction data, and criminal history information,
• illegal drug usage,
• alcohol usage,
• gambling information, and
• miscellaneous information, such as firearm permits, special skills, other languages, hobbies and interests, other enforcement agencies where applicant applied, and whether or not applicant previously applied for a USPP officer position.
Applicants are required to write a personal essay (minimum of 200 words) describing in their own words why they want to be a USPP officer. The applicant's essay must also address:
• How they became aware of the USPP,
• what they think the role of a park police officer should be, and
• their career aspirations/expectations as a USPP officer.
On September 30, 1996, Title 18 U.S.C. Section 922 (g) (9) took effect, making it a felony for anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to possess a firearm or ammunition. Thus, any law enforcement officer and other government employees who have been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor may not lawfully possess or receive firearms or ammunition for any purpose, including performance of their official duties. Candidates for USPP officers are required to disclose information pertaining to convictions of domestic violence, to include whether the candidate was convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, and if yes, the following information is required to be disclosed or the candidate will be automatically disqualified from the application process:
• Court/jurisdiction,
• docket/case number,
• statute, charge,
• date sentenced, and
• whether the conviction was expunged or set aside, or whether they were pardoned for the offense.
• USPP Form (TBD) “Physician Consent Form”
• USPP Form (TBD) “Physical Efficiency Battery “Waiver” ”
• USPP Form (TBD) “Release to Obtain a Credit Report,” and
• USPP Form (TBD) “Applicant Documentation Form”
• USPP Form 1 “Personal History Statement”
• USPP Form (TBD) Personal Essay—“Why I Want to Be a United States Park Police Officer”
• USPP Form (TBD) “Disqualification for Misdemeanor Convictions for Domestic Violence”
We invite comments concerning this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. 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 OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before May 2, 2015. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation. Comments may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service,1201 Eye St. NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by June 15, 2015. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
A request for removal has been made for the following resources:
60-day notice.
To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), BSEE is inviting comments on a collection of information that we will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The information collection request (ICR) concerns a renewal to the paperwork requirements in the regulations under
You must submit comments by July 28, 2015.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods listed below.
• Electronically go to
• Email
Cheryl Blundon, Regulations and Standards Branch at (703) 787-1607 to request additional information about this ICR.
The FWPCA, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), requires that a spill-response plan be submitted for offshore facilities prior to February 18, 1993. The OPA specifies that after that date, an offshore facility may not handle, store, or transport oil unless a plan has been submitted. Regulations at 30 CFR 254 establish requirements for spill-response plans for oil-handling facilities seaward of the coast line, including associated pipelines.
To provide supplementary guidance and procedures, BSEE issues Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) on a regional or National basis. Regulation 30 CFR 250.103 allows BSEE to issue NTLs to clarify, supplement, or provide more detail about certain requirements. Additional guidance pertaining to Oil-Spill Response Requirements is provided by NTLs when needed.
Regulations implementing these responsibilities are among those delegated to BSEE. The regulations under 30 CFR 254 pertain to preparation and submittal of response plans that ensure the availability of private-spill response personnel and equipment.
We use the information collected under 30 CFR 254 to determine compliance with OPA by lessees/operators. Specifically, BSEE needs the information to:
• Determine that lessees/operators have an adequate plan and are sufficiently prepared to implement a quick and effective response to a discharge of oil from their facilities or operations.
• Review plans prepared under the regulations of a State and submitted to BSEE to satisfy the requirements in 30 CFR 254 to ensure that they meet minimum requirements of OPA.
• Verify that personnel involved in oil-spill response are properly trained and familiar with the requirements of the spill-response plans and to lead and witness spill-response exercises.
• Assess the sufficiency and availability of contractor equipment and materials.
• Verify that sufficient quantities of equipment are available and in working order.
• Oversee spill-response efforts and maintain official records of pollution events.
• Assess the efforts of lessees/operators to prevent oil spills or prevent substantial threats of such discharges.
No questions of a sensitive nature are asked. Generally, no proprietary information is collected under 30 CFR 254. However, if respondents did submit proprietary information, we protect such information under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and DOI's implementing regulations (43 CFR 2), 30 CFR 250.197, “Data and information to be made
Agencies must also estimate the non-hour paperwork cost burdens to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. Therefore, if you have other than hour burden costs to generate, maintain, and disclose this information, you should comment and provide your total capital and startup cost components or annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of service components. For further information on this burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(1) and (2), or contact the Bureau representative listed previously in this notice.
We will summarize written responses to this notice and address them in our submission for OMB approval. As a result of your comments, we will make any necessary adjustments to the burden in our submission to OMB.
Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), the United States hereby publishes below the comments received on the proposed Final Judgment in
Copies of the comments, attachments to these comments, and the United States' Response are available for inspection at the Department of Justice Antitrust Division, 450 Fifth Street NW., Suite 1010, Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202-514-2481), on the Department of Justice's Web site at
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. VERSO PAPER CORP., and NEWPAGE HOLDINGS INC., Defendants.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16(b)-(h) (“APPA” or “Tunney Act”), the United States hereby responds to the public comments received regarding the proposed Final Judgment in this case. After careful consideration of the submitted comments, the United States continues to believe that the proposed Final Judgment will provide an effective and appropriate remedy for the antitrust violations alleged in the Complaint. The United States will move the Court for entry of the proposed Final Judgment after the public comments and this response have been published in the
On January 3, 2014, Verso Paper Corp. (“Verso”) entered into an agreement to acquire NewPage Holdings Inc. (“NewPage”) in a transaction valued at approximately $1.4 billion.
Simultaneously with the filing of the Complaint, the United States filed a proposed Final Judgment and a Stipulation signed by Plaintiff and Defendants consenting to entry of the proposed Final Judgment after compliance with the requirements of the Tunney Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16, and a Competitive Impact Statement (“CIS”) describing the transaction and the proposed Final Judgment. The United States published the proposed Final Judgment and CIS in the
The proposed Final Judgment is the culmination of a nearly year-long investigation by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice (“Department”) of the proposed transaction. As part of its investigation, the Department issued 19 Civil Investigative Demands for documents and information to third parties, collected almost one million documents from the Defendants and third parties, interviewed more than 100 customers, brokers, and competitors in the relevant coated paper markets, deposed 12 Verso and NewPage employees, and consulted with industry experts. The Department carefully analyzed the information it obtained from these sources and thoroughly considered all of the issues presented.
The Department found that the proposed acquisition would likely have eliminated substantial head-to-head competition in the relevant markets between Verso and NewPage, providing the combined firm with an incentive to raise prices and reduce output. The Department also found in the coated freesheet web paper and coated groundwood paper markets that the transaction would have likely caused the remaining players to accommodate one another's price increases and output reductions. Overall, the Department concluded that if Verso and NewPage had completed the proposed transaction as structured, the loss of competition likely would have resulted in higher prices to consumers. For these reasons, the Department filed a civil antitrust lawsuit to block the merger and alleged that the proposed transaction violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18.
The proposed Final Judgment eliminates the anticompetitive effects identified in the Complaint by requiring Defendants to divest NewPage's Rumford, Maine and Biron, Wisconsin paper mills and related assets (collectively, “the Divestiture Assets”) to Catalyst Paper Corporation (“Catalyst”) on terms acceptable to the United States. The divestitures eliminate the anticompetitive effects of the transaction by transferring the Rumford and Biron paper mills to a vigorous and independent competitor and preserving the pre-merger market structure in the coated freesheet web paper, coated groundwood paper, and label paper markets.
Since the United States submitted the proposed Final Judgment on December 31, 2014, Verso has acquired NewPage, and Catalyst has acquired and is operating the Divestiture Assets.
The APPA requires that proposed consent judgments in antitrust cases brought by the United States be subject to a 60-day public comment period, after which the court shall determine whether entry of the proposed Final Judgment “is in the public interest.” 15 U.S.C. § 16(e)(1). In making that determination, the court, in accordance with the statute as amended in 2004, is required to consider:
(A) The competitive impact of such judgment, including termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and modification, duration of relief sought, anticipated effects of alternative remedies actually considered, whether its terms are ambiguous, and any other competitive considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such judgment that the court deems necessary to a determination of whether the consent judgment is in the public interest; and
(B) the impact of entry of such judgment upon competition in the relevant market or markets, upon the public generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial.
Under the APPA, a court considers, among other things, the relationship between the remedy secured and the specific allegations set forth in the Complaint, whether the decree is sufficiently clear, whether the enforcement mechanisms are sufficient, and whether the decree may positively harm third parties.
In determining whether a proposed settlement is in the public interest, “the court `must accord deference to the government's predictions about the efficacy of its remedies.'”
Courts “may not require that the remedies perfectly match the alleged violations.”
In its 2004 amendments to the Tunney Act,
During the 60-day comment period, the United States received two comments regarding the proposed Final Judgment, although no comments were received from any printer, publisher, or other paper customer. The only comments were made by former employees of the now closed Bucksport, Maine paper mill. Verso produced coated groundwood and specialty paper products at the Bucksport mill until closing the mill in December 2014 and selling it to AIM Development (USA) LLC (“AIM”). AIM is the U.S. subsidiary of American Iron & Metal, Inc., a company that purchases discontinued manufacturing facilities and salvages the metal. Both comments focus upon competition in the coated groundwood paper market and the closure of the Bucksport mill.
Local 1821 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (“Local 1821”), consisting of 58 former employees of the Bucksport mill, submitted a comment arguing that: (1) The divestitures provided by the proposed Final Judgment are inadequate to redress the merger's anticompetitive effects and should have included the Bucksport mill; (2) Catalyst is an insufficiently independent and vigorous competitor and should not have been selected as the buyer of the Divestiture Assets; (3) recent price increases by Verso and Catalyst demonstrate the failure of the proposed Final Judgment to remedy the transaction's anticompetitive effects; and (4) the United States should have investigated alleged anticompetitive conduct that Verso's parent company, Apollo Capital Management (“Apollo”), has engaged in since at least 2011, including efforts to buy NewPage, acquiring NewPage's debt to influence its business operations, and causing Verso and NewPage to shut down mills in order to reduce output and raise prices. Local 1821 further argues that the Department should open an investigation into whether the sale of the Bucksport mill to AIM violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Herbert R. Gilley also submitted a comment. Mr. Gilley, who is not a member of Local 1821, worked at the Bucksport mill for more than 38 years before losing his job when the mill closed. In his comment, Mr. Gilley similarly contests the closure and sale of the Bucksport mill and argues that the closure was anticompetive and will result in reduced output and higher prices.
Local 1821 and Mr. Gilley argue that the required divestitures are not sufficient to prevent the merger's anticompetitive effects and assert that additional paper mills, including Verso's Bucksport mill, should have been included in the divestiture package. But the required divestitures essentially preserve the preexisting competitive structure of the affected coated paper markets by providing Catalyst with approximately the same capacity as Verso had prior to the merger. The divested Rumford and Biron mills produced approximately 940,000 tons per year of coated publication papers, label paper, and other papers, which is approximately the same amount of production capacity that Verso had after closing the Bucksport mill but before acquiring NewPage. In the coated groundwood market in which the Bucksport mill competed, the output of the divested mills actually exceeds the output of the assets Verso held after it closed the Bucksport mill and before it completed the merger. In fact, the Biron mill alone produces more coated groundwood than Verso's remaining coated groundwood production assets. Furthermore, both the Rumford and Biron mills have a strong track record of competitively producing a range of coated publication papers and label paper, and Catalyst's ownership of the mills will give it a
Local 1821 and Mr. Gilley assert that the Department should have required Verso to divest the Bucksport mill. But, as discussed above, the Department concluded that the required divestitures would sufficiently preserve competition, making the divestiture of the Bucksport mill unnecessary.
The Bucksport mill, moreover, was less viable than the mills included in the Divestiture Assets. The Department carefully reviewed evidence related to the Verso mills, including Verso's plans relating to the Bucksport mill that pre-dated the merger and deposition testimony of senior Verso executives about the future of the Bucksport mill. Based on this evidence, the Department concluded that Verso closed the Bucksport mill because the mill was not profitable and that the merger did not cause the mill's closure.
Notably, Local 1821 made many of the same antitrust arguments about the Bucksport mill in a recent—and unsuccessful—lawsuit it brought to enjoin Verso's sale of the Bucksport mill to AIM. On December 15, 2014, Local 1821 filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Maine alleging that the pending sale violated federal and state antitrust laws.
Local 1821 asserts that Catalyst is not an appropriate buyer for the Divestiture Assets because it is insufficiently vigorous and independent to compete with Verso. However, Catalyst operated three paper mills in British Columbia, Canada, before it acquired the Divestiture Assets and the Department thoroughly examined Catalyst before approving it as the purchaser of the Divestiture Assets. The Department carefully reviewed the proposed transaction, Catalyst's plans to compete in the relevant markets, and the transitional agreements between Verso and Catalyst.
Local 1821 notes that Verso and Catalyst each announced price increases in January 2015 and argues that these announced price increases demonstrate that the divestiture is inadequate. But Local 1821 has not offered any evidence that the price increases arise from or are connected to the merger. To the contrary, the price increases likely are related to a number of factors, including input costs, demand fluctuations, and recent and significant capacity reductions in the coated groundwood market that are unrelated to the merger. In addition to Verso's Bucksport mill closure, coated groundwood paper producer Futuremark also closed its Alsip, Illinois coated groundwood mill in August 2014.
Lastly, Local 1821 alleges that Apollo, Verso's parent company, has engaged in anticompetitive conduct since at least 2011 and argues that the Department should have investigated these earlier activities. Local 1821 also asserts that the Department should investigate whether Verso's 2015 sale of the Bucksport mill to AIM violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Although the Department takes all allegations of anticompetitive conduct seriously, Local 1821's claim that the United States should bring or have brought an enforcement action relating to conduct not challenged in the Complaint is outside the scope of this Tunney Act proceeding. It is well-settled that the Department's decision to bring an action alleging harm is left to the Department's prosecutorial discretion and is not part of the court's Tunney Act review.
After reviewing the public comments, the United States continues to believe that the proposed Final Judgment, as drafted, provides an effective and appropriate remedy for the antitrust violations alleged in the Complaint, and is therefore in the public interest. The United States will move this Court to enter the proposed Final Judgment after the comments and this response are published in the
Dated: May 18, 2015
Respectfully submitted, /s/Karl D. Knutsen., Karl D. Knutsen, Richard Martin, Garrett M. Liskey (D.C. Bar No.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Disclosures by Insurers to General Account Policyholders,” 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-EBSA, 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:
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 Disclosures by Insurers to General Account Policyholders information collection. Regulations 29 CFR 2550.401(c)-1 imposes specific requirements on insurers that are parties to transition policies, in order to ensure fiduciaries acting on behalf of plans have adequate information and understanding of how the transition policies work. Certain of these requirements constitute information collections subject to the PRA. Specifically, to the extent a transition policy first issued prior to January 1, 1999, to or for the benefit of an employee benefit plan is not a guaranteed benefit policy, the insurer must annually disclose to the plan fiduciary: (1) The methods by which income and expenses of the insurer's general account are allocated to the policy, the actual annual return to the plan, and other pertinent information; (2) the extent to which alternative arrangements supported by the assets of the insurer's separate accounts are available; (3) any rights under the policy to transfer funds to a separate account and the terms governing such right; and (4) the extent to which support by assets of the insurer's separate accounts might pose differing risks to the plan. Employee Retirement Income Security Act section 404(c) authorizes 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 June 30, 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,
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of advisory committee meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app 2) and implementing regulation 41 CFR 101-6, NARA announces a meeting of the National Industrial Security Program Policy Advisory Committee (NISPPAC) .
The meeting will be on July 15, 2015, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. EDT.
National Archives and Records Administration; 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.; Archivist's Reception Room, Room 105; Washington, DC 20408.
Robert Tringali, Program Analyst, by mail at ISOO, National Archives Building; 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.; Washington, DC 20408, by
The purpose of this meeting is to discuss National Industrial Security Program policy matters. The meeting is open to the public. However, due to space limitations and access procedures, you must submit the name and telephone number of individuals planning to attend to the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) no later than Friday, July 10, 2015. ISOO will provide additional instructions for accessing the meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub., L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces its intent to hold proposal review meetings throughout the year. The purpose of these meetings is to provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to the NSF for financial support. The agenda for each of these meetings is to review and evaluate proposals as part of the selection process for awards. The review and evaluation may also include assessment of the progress of awarded proposals. The majority of these meetings will take place at NSF, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230.
These meetings will be closed to the public. The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act. NSF will continue to review the agenda and merits of each meeting for overall compliance of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
These closed proposal review meetings will not be announced on an individual basis in the
National Science Foundation.
Notice.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to request establishment and clearance of this collection. In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), we are providing opportunity for public comment on this action. After obtaining and considering public comment, NSF will prepare the submission requesting that OMB approve clearance of this collection for no longer than three years.
A copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the
Submit comments before July 28, 2015.
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or send email to
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or send email to
In 2010, NSF established the SEES Portfolio as a multi-year effort to coordinate Agency research and education activities related to the environment, energy and sustainability. The overarching goals of the SEES portfolio are to (1) support interdisciplinary research and education that can facilitate the move towards global sustainability; (2) build linkages among existing projects and partners and add new participants in the sustainability research enterprise; and (3) develop a workforce trained in the interdisciplinary scholarship needed to understand and address the complex issues of sustainability.
NSF is supporting an evaluation of the SEES portfolio to determine the extent to which it has achieved its program- and portfolio-level goals. Specifically, the evaluation seeks to measure the output and outcomes of SEES in terms of the development of new knowledge and concepts that advance the overarching goal of a sustainable human future, new and productive connections made between researchers in a range of disciplines, and the development of a workforce capable of meeting sustainability challenges.
This comment request relates to a proposed
NSF is interested in comments on the practical utility of the survey in view of the project goals and the study approach, the burden on respondents and potential ways to minimize it.
Comments submitted in response to this Notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the ICR; they will also become a matter of public record.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft NUREG; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment draft NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision 2, “Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants.” This guidance document was originally issued in December 1980 by the NRC in conjunction with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Both agencies use the document to evaluate the adequacy of the emergency plans and preparedness of commercial nuclear power plant (NPP) licensees and applicants, as well as those of State, local, and Tribal governments within the emergency planning zones (EPZs) surrounding commercial NPPs. This revision reflects changes to the NRC's and FEMA's regulations, guidance, and policies, as well as advances in technology and methods for responding to radiological incidents that have occurred since the document was originally issued. It also incorporates the four supplemental documents and addenda to NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, that have been issued in the intervening years, and is intended to modernize the guidance while lessening administrative burden on users.
Submit comments by August 27, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
In order to avoid the receipt and review of duplicate submissions, please submit your comments and any supporting material by only one of the following means:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Don Tailleart, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-287-9257; email:
Please refer to Docket ID FEMA-2012-0026 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Submitted comments may also be inspected at FEMA, Office of Chief Counsel, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-3100.
Please include Docket ID FEMA-2012-0026 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that FEMA is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
All submissions received must include the agency name (FEMA) and docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, FEMA will post all submissions, without change, to
In December 1980, the NRC issued NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, “Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants,” in conjunction with FEMA (45 FR 85862; December 30, 1980).
Revision 1 of NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1 provides guidance on meeting the 16 planning standards for NPP emergency response plans found in the NRC's regulations in paragraph 50.47(b) of Title 10 of the
Since the publication of NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, in 1980, four supplemental documents and one set of addenda have been issued that update and modify specific planning and procedural elements. These documents are available online at the Federal rulemaking Web site,
The NRC is developing an emergency preparedness handbook (a NUREG document) in conjunction with the revision of NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1. The handbook will provide amplifying guidance on meeting the intent of the NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision 2 evaluation criteria applicable to commercial NPP applicants and licensees, and the level of detail that applicant and licensee emergency plans should provide regarding each evaluation criterion. A preliminary draft version of the handbook will be available for viewing in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15140A415 during the public comment period for NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision 2; a final draft version of the handbook will be issued at a later time.
The NRC and FEMA held two public meetings on August 22, 2012, and September 13, 2012, as well as two public stakeholder engagement sessions on October 29-31, 2013, and June 25, 2014. The public meetings were conducted in order to: (1) solicit input from stakeholders and interested members of the public on the scope of future revisions to NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1; (2) describe the proposed timeline for the revisions to NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1; (3) promote transparency, public participation, and collaboration during the NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, revision process; and (4) allow direct input from stakeholders and the public on changes being made during the initial writing process. Presentation material and meeting notes are available for review on the Federal rulemaking Web site,
Issuance of NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision 2, in final form, would not constitute backfitting under 10 CFR 50.109 and would not otherwise be inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. As discussed in section I.B., “Scope,” under the subsection titled “Use by NRC,” of NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision 2, the NRC has no current intention to impose NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision 2, on current holders of a construction permit, operating license, early site permit, or combined license.
NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision 2, if finalized, could be applied to applications for certain 10 CFR part 50 operating licenses or construction permits and 10 CFR part 52 combined licenses and early site permits. Such action would not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 or be otherwise inconsistent with the applicable issue finality provision in 10 CFR part 52, inasmuch as such applicants are not, with certain exceptions, within the scope of entities protected by 10 CFR 50.109 or the relevant issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. This is because neither the Backfit Rule nor the issue finality provisions under 10 CFR part 52—with certain exclusions discussed below—was intended to apply to every NRC action that substantially changes the expectations of current and future applicants. The exceptions to the general principle are applicable whenever an applicant references a 10 CFR part 52 license (
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
On February 5, 2015, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
As stated in the Notice, FINRA is proposing to amend the Codes to increase the fee for the late cancellation or postponement of a scheduled hearing session for the primary purpose of encouraging parties to provide more advance notice of cancellations and postponements, or, in the alternative, to compensate arbitrators more for lost time and opportunities in the event of a late cancellation or postponement.
Under current Rules 12601(b)(2) and 13601(b)(2) of the Codes, each arbitrator selected to hear a case receives a $100 honorarium
FINRA stated that it has “received many complaints from arbitrators concerning the current late cancellation rule,” noting that it is the most frequent complaint Dispute Resolution staff receives from arbitrators.
FINRA stated that it has started addressing these concerns by amending its rules to increase the amount of honoraria paid to arbitrators to $300 per hearing session in 2014.
FINRA believes that these changes would result in fewer late cancellations by parties to an arbitration as the higher Late Cancellation Fee would incentivize parties to begin settlement negotiations earlier in the process.
The proposal would amend Rules 12601(b)(2) and 13601(b)(2) to increase from three business days to ten calendar days the timeframe before which parties must request cancellation of hearings in order to avoid incurring the proposed Late Cancellation Fee. FINRA believes that the increased time would give arbitrators more opportunity to secure other income-generating opportunities and potentially save arbitrators time lost in preparation for assigned hearings.
The proposed rule change would also increase the amount of honoraria paid to arbitrators for late cancellations of hearings from $100 to $600 per arbitrator, making the honorarium equal to that which arbitrators would have received for one typical day of hearings,
The proposed rule change would also shift the phrase “and granted” to the end of the first dependent clause in Rule 12601(b)(2) to clarify that the timing of a cancellation request controls whether the fee is assessed, not the timing of the arbitrators' decision on the request, if a decision is required.
FINRA is also proposing to make conforming changes to Rule 12214(a), by amending the reference to the Late Cancellation Fee in Rule 12214(a).
As noted above, the Commission received twelve comment letters on the proposed rule change
While a majority of the commenters supported the proposed increase in arbitrator honoraria, two commenters opposed the proposed rule change stating that the increased Late Cancellation Fee could discourage parties from settling their claims and, instead, encourage them to arbitrate their claims.
In its response, FINRA acknowledged that customers would likely be required to pay some of the increased Late Cancellation Fee under the proposed rule change.
Two commenters suggested that FINRA amend the proposal to create exceptions for investors with “small” claims.
In its response, FINRA noted that claims of $50,000 or less are subject to FINRA Rules 12800 and 13800 (“simplified arbitration rules”).
FINRA also stated that it believes that exempting claims of $100,000 or less as suggested in the GSU Letter would not address the primary goal of the proposed rule change, which is to encourage parties to provide earlier notice to cancel a scheduled hearing.
In addition, FINRA believes that small claims customers could mitigate the Late Cancellation Fee by, among other things, negotiating (as part of any settlement agreement) the allocation of fees, requesting that the panel waive the late cancellation fee based on extraordinary circumstances, or requesting that the panel or FINRA waive the Late Cancellation Fee pursuant Rule 12601(b)(3).
Moreover, FINRA believes that carving out an exception for “small” claims would create a two-tiered fee system and lead to an additional burden on FINRA staff.
For the reasons discussed above, FINRA believes that the proposed rule change should apply to all scheduled hearings regardless of the size of the claim.
One commenter recommended that FINRA amend the proposal to exempt parties from Late Cancellation Fees incurred due to late cancellations that are “necessary to accommodate a mediation (or other settlement efforts) or because a case has been settled.”
In the Notice, FINRA acknowledged that customers would likely be required to pay some of the increased Late Cancellation Fee under the proposed rule change.
For these reasons, FINRA declined to modify its proposal to exempt parties from Late Cancellation Fees incurred by parties attempting to accommodate mediation or other settlement efforts.
One commenter expressed concern that the proposed rule change would “run counter to FINRA's objective of providing an affordable method to resolve disputes”
In its response, FINRA stated that that it does not believe that the proposed Late Cancellation Fee would significantly affect the affordability of the dispute resolution forum, noting that investors “experience substantial savings in arbitration compared to litigation.”
FINRA also believes that amending the proposal to impose a rebuttable presumption that the member or associate person be responsible for any Late Cancellation Fee would be unfair because there are instances in which customers create the need for and request a cancellation.
For these reasons, FINRA declined to modify its proposed rule to create a presumption that member firms and associated persons pay the proposed late cancellation fees.
Two commenters recommended that FINRA modify the proposed rule to create separate tiers of Late Cancellation Fees that would apply based on when a request for cancellation or postponement is made.
FINRA believes adopting a phased-in, or sliding-scale, approach would be confusing for parties and more complex and time-consuming for staff to implement.
For these reasons, FINRA declined to modify its proposal to create additional tiers of late cancellation fees.
Three commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule change would create a conflict of interest for arbitrators considering whether to waive the Late Cancellation Fee in the event of an extraordinary circumstance as permitted under Rule 12601(b)(2).
In its response, FINRA stated that the forum's policy currently is “to pay arbitrators the fee they would have received in the event the panel waives the late cancellation fee for the parties”
One commenter suggested that FINRA provide additional arbitrator training on the types of extraordinary circumstances that would be appropriate to consider when deciding whether to waive the late cancellation fee, as well as how to verify the accuracy of these circumstances.
In its response, FINRA stated that while “it has not received any complaints from parties about arbitrators failing to waive late cancellation fees in the event of extraordinary circumstances” it has issued guidance on this issue in its Notice to Members 04-53.
Three commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule change may harm investors who represent themselves in the forum (“pro se claimants”) because they may be less likely to be aware of the increased fee and deadline for
In its response, FINRA stated that it believes that “all parties should be reminded of the proposed rule change, so that they are aware of the ramifications of postponing or cancelling a scheduled hearing inside of the proposed cancellation period.”
The Commission has carefully considered the proposal, the comments received, and FINRA's response to the comments. Based on its review of the record, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities association.
As discussed above, the proposed rule change would: (i) Increase a fee for the late cancellation of a scheduled arbitration hearing, (ii) lengthen the notice period for a party to cancel a scheduled hearing without incurring the fee, and (iii) increase the amount of honoraria paid to arbitrators affected by the late cancellation of a scheduled hearing. As stated above, FINRA designed the proposal to, among other things: (i) encourage parties to an arbitration to provide more advance notice of cancellations and postponements of hearing sessions, and (ii) help recruit and arbitrators by better compensating them for their lost time and opportunities in the event of a late cancellation or postponement.
The Commission received twelve comment letters on the proposed rule change
While the Commission appreciates the recommendations made by some commenters and recognizes that the proposal may result in an increased financial burden on some customer claimants, including those with small claims, the Commission believes that FINRA responded appropriately to their concerns. In particular, the Commission acknowledges the safeguards that FINRA has built into its proposal to mitigate the impact of the increase Late Cancellation Fee on customer claimants. For example, FINRA stated that parties could negotiate (as part of any settlement agreements) the allocation of fees, request that an arbitration panel waive the Late Cancellation Fee based on extraordinary circumstances, or FINRA could waive the Late Cancellation Fee.
Moreover, the Commission agrees with the views of certain commenters that the proposed rule “strike[s] a balance between the parties and arbitrators that serve the forum.”
Furthermore, the Commission agrees with FINRA's assessment that the proposal would “encourage parties to
For the reasons stated above, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application for an order under section 23(c)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from section 23(c) of the Act.
KCAP Financial, Inc. (“Company”) requests an order to amend a prior order
The application was filed on September 22, 2014, and amended on January 28, 2015, May 15, 2015, and May 21, 2015.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicant with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on June 15, 2015, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicant, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicant: c/o Dayl W. Pearson, President and Chief Executive Officer, KCAP Financial, Inc., 295 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10017.
Steven I. Amchan, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6826, or David P. Bartels, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821, (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for the applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Company is an internally managed, non-diversified, closed-end investment company that has elected to be regulated as a business development company (“BDC”) under the Act. The Incentive Plan authorizes the Company, among other things, to grant to its Employees in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Prior Order (i) Restricted Stock and (ii) options to acquire shares of the Company's common stock, par value $0.01 per share (“Common Stock”) in accordance with section 61(a)(3)(B) of the Act. The Company seeks to amend the Prior Order to permit it to withhold shares of the Company's Common Stock or purchase shares of Common Stock from the Participants
2. On the date that any Restricted Stock vests, such vested shares of the Restricted Stock are released to the Participant and are available for sale or transfer.
3. The Incentive Plan, as amended and restated effective June 20, 2014, was approved by the Company's board of directors (“Board”), including the required majority of the Company's directors with the meaning of section 57(o) of the Act. The Company states that the Board is permitted to allow the Company to withhold shares of Common Stock or purchase shares of Common stock from the Company's Employees to satisfy tax withholding obligations related to the vesting of Restricted Stock, or the exercise of options to acquire Common Stock or Restricted Stock granted pursuant to the Incentive Plan. The Company states that the Incentive Plan further provides the Board with discretion to permit the Company's Employees to pay the exercise price of options to purchase shares of Common Stock or Restricted Stock with shares of Common Stock already held by them or pursuant to net share settlement.
1. Section 23(c) of the Act, which is made applicable to BDCs by section 63 of the Act, generally prohibits a BDC from purchasing any securities of which it is the issuer except in the open market, pursuant to tender offers or under other circumstances as the Commission may permit to ensure that the purchase is made on a basis that does not unfairly discriminate against any holders of the class or classes of securities to be purchased. The Company states that the withholding or purchase of shares of Restricted Stock and Common Stock in payment of applicable withholding tax obligations or of Common Stock in payment for the exercise price of a stock option might be deemed to be purchases by the Company of its own securities within the meaning of section 23(c) and therefore prohibited by the Act.
2. Section 23(c)(3) provides that the Commission may issue an order that would permit a BDC to purchase its shares in circumstances in which the purchase is made in a manner or on a basis that does not unfairly discriminate against any holders of the class or classes of securities to be purchased. The Company states that it believes that the requested relief meets the standards of section 23(c)(3).
3. The Company states that these purchases will be made on a basis which does not unfairly discriminate against the stockholders of the Company because all purchases of Common Stock will be at the closing sales price of the Common Stock on the NASDAQ Global Select Market on the relevant date (
4. The Company submits that the proposed purchases do not raise concerns about preferential treatment of the Company's insiders because the Incentive Plan is a bona fide compensation plan of the type that is common among corporations generally. Further, the Company argues that the vesting schedule is determined at the time of the initial grant of the Restricted Stock and the option exercise price is determined at the time of the initial grant of the options. The Company represents that that all purchases may be made only as permitted by the Incentive Plan and in the discretion of the Board, which is composed of at least a majority of “non-interested” persons within the meaning of section 2(a)(19) of the Act. The Company argues that granting the requested relief would be consistent with policies underlying the provisions of the Act permitting the use of equity compensation as well as prior exemptive relief granted by the Commission for relief under section 23(c) of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 2, 2015, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to adopt new NYSE Rule 124 to conduct a daily Midday Auction in certain lower-volume securities. Under the proposal, the Exchange would conduct one Midday Auction per trading day
The Exchange proposes to update the list of Midday Auction Stocks at least quarterly.
To initiate the Midday Auction, the Exchange would pause trading in Midday Auction Stocks on the Exchange for five minutes (“Midday Auction Pause”) by suspending automatic executions and publishing a zero quote.
During the Midday Auction Pause, the Exchange would: (i) Maintain resting orders on the Exchange's book that would be eligible to participate in the Midday Auction; (ii) accept new orders that would be eligible to participate in the Midday Auction, including Market On-the-Open orders (“MOO Orders”)
At the end of the Midday Auction Pause, the Exchange would conduct the Midday Auction.
The Midday Auction would reopen the Midday Auction Stocks at a single equilibrium price in the same manner as set forth in NYSE Rule 123D (Openings and Halts in Trading), with two exceptions.
The second proposed exception to NYSE Rule 123D would provide that the Midday Auction would not execute at a price outside (i) the LULD Price Bands in effect at the time of the Midday Auction, as provided for in NYSE Rule 80C(a)(4), or (ii) the Exchange's Trading Collars, as provided for in NYSE Rule 1000(c)(i), whichever price threshold is lower (for a buy imbalance) or higher (for a sell imbalance) at the time of the Midday Auction.
Orders would participate in the Midday Auction in the same way they would participate in openings or reopenings, subject to the two exceptions explained above.
The Commission has received one comment letter on the Exchange's proposal. The commenter asserts that broad-based, significant changes to equity market structure should be conducted through the Commission rulemaking process, not through a single exchange's rulemaking process. The commenter argues that the Commission should carry out market structure changes in a manner designed to benefit the entire market, rather than approving a self-regulatory organization rulemaking proposal that is designed to improve the market share for a single market participant.
Further, the commenter states that the proposal should not be approved before both the Exchange and the Commission confirm that a member firm that relies on NYSE's displayed book for compliance with the limit order display requirement of Rule 604 of Regulation NMS (“Limit Order Display Rule”),
Finally, the commenter objects to the Exchange's statement that it will request an exemption under Rule 611(d) of Regulation NMS
In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange responds that, to address the commenter's concerns regarding the Limit Order Display Rule and a member organization's best-execution requirements, it has amended the proposal. First, the Exchange has amended the proposal to allow a member organization to designate an
With respect to the applicability of Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, the Exchange states in Amendment No. 1 that it will not be submitting a request for exemptive relief. The Exchange states its belief that the exception under Rule 611(b)(3) of Regulation NMS
After careful review and consideration of the Exchange's proposal and the comment letter, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission believes that the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is reasonably designed to potentially improve market quality in thinly traded securities, including securities issued by small-to-medium-sized issuers, by aggregating intra-day liquidity on the Exchange through an auction process. The Midday Auction would be limited to NYSE-listed stocks that have a consolidated average daily trading volume of 1,000,000 shares or less, and it would provide market participants with a new alternative for seeking liquidity in these stocks. Market participants could participate in the Midday Auction, but they would also be free to route orders to participate in continuous trading on other competing exchanges and trading venues.
The commenter argues that broad-based, significant changes to equity market structure should be conducted through Commission rulemaking and not through a single exchange's self-regulatory organization rulemaking process. The question before the Commission, however, is whether the Exchange's proposal is consistent with the Act. If the Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal is consistent with the Act, the Commission must approve the proposal,
As noted above, the Exchange has proposed an alternative means of aggregating intra-day liquidity—adapting an existing auction mechanism to function during the trading day—and the Commission believes that the Act permits exchanges to experiment with new trading mechanisms, so long as those mechanisms are consistent with the Act and the regulations thereunder. The mere fact that a single exchange proposes, consistent with the Act, to operate differently from another exchange, or even all other exchanges, or that it seeks to gain market share from its competitors by doing so, does not mean that the exchange's proposed rule change constitutes a broad-based change to equity market structure that should only be accomplished by Commission rulemaking. The current equity market structure features, and the Act permits, fierce competition among numerous national securities exchanges, alternative trading systems, and other trading venues, each of which seeks to gain market share by differentiating itself through offering, among other things, different order types, data products, and trading fees and rebates. The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal fits comfortably within the bounds of existing competition between trading venues and that it is consistent with the Act.
The commenter has also raised questions with respect to Exchange member firms' obligations under the Limit Order Display Rule. The Exchange has responded to these questions, and broader best-execution concerns, by filing Amendment No. 1, which would: (1) Allow a member organization to designate an order to cancel at the beginning of the Midday Auction Pause; (2) allow a member organization to designate an order to route to an away market quote that locks or crosses the previously displayed price of that order during the Midday Auction Pause; and (3) cancel resting and arriving Non-Displayed Reserve Orders and Non-Display Reserve e-Quotes during the Midday Auction Pause.
The Commission notes that the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1, would allow Exchange member organizations to affirmatively opt out of participating in the Midday Auction by designating orders to be canceled at the start of the Midday Auction Pause and to conditionally opt out of the Midday Auction by designating an order to route to away markets that lock or cross the order during the Midday Auction Pause. The Commission believes that the operation of the Midday Auction, including the Midday Auction Pause, would not conflict with the ability of member organizations to comply with their obligations under the Limit Order Display Rule
Finally, the commenter asserts that the Midday Auction does not qualify for an exemption from the requirements of Rule 611 of Regulation NMS because the Midday Auction would be substantially different from the operation of a single-priced reopening transaction. The commenter argues that the Rule 611 exception for reopening auctions was intended to apply in very specific, limited circumstances to address unusual market, operational, or regulatory situations, not to permit daily auction mechanism whose purpose is to increase the market share of a single exchange.
In response, the Exchange has clarified that it will not be submitting a request for exemptive relief under Rule 611 of Regulation NMS because it believes that the Midday Auction would qualify for the single-priced reopening exception of Rule 611(b)(3). The Exchange explains, in Amendment No. 1, that “the single-priced trade at the conclusion of the Midday Auction is a single-priced reopening transaction after a trading halt conducted pursuant to Exchange rules and would be excepted under paragraph (b)(3) of Rule 611 under Regulation NMS from the trade-through requirements under Rule 611.”
The Commission agrees that the proposal falls within the exception for single-priced reopening transactions pursuant to Rule 611(b)(3) of Regulation NMS.
As proposed, the Midday Auction would be conducted once per day, pursuant to Exchange rules and at a time that would be publicly announced in advance. The Midday Auction would halt trading on the Exchange in Midday Auction Securities for five minutes to allow market participants an opportunity to enter, cancel, or modify trading interest. During this five-minute pause, the Exchange would publish Order Imbalance Information, and would be permitted to publish “indications,” to attract liquidity. At the conclusion of the five-minute pause, the Exchange would reopen each of the Midday Auction Stocks, executing the queued orders at a single equilibrium price in the same manner as NYSE Rule 123D reopenings.
The Commission believes that the proposal is not designed to permit the Exchange to declare a trading halt merely to be able to circumvent the operation of the Order Protection Rule upon reopening. Instead, the Exchange has proposed a formalized and transparent process for the Midday Auction that would involve the queuing and execution of multiple orders at a single equilibrium price, pursuant to a trading halt declared pursuant to its own rules. The Commission therefore believes that the proposal falls within the exception for single-priced reopenings pursuant to Rule 611(b)(3) of Regulation NMS.
For the above reasons, the Commission finds that the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1 to 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.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of notice of Amendment No. 1 in the
The Commission believes that Amendment No. 1 provides market participants with the option to opt out of the Midday Auction, provides that non-displayed orders would not participate in the Midday Auction, and addresses the price limitations within which the Midday Auction would occur. In particular, the Commission believes that permitting member organizations to designate orders to cancel when the Midday Auction Pause begins, or to route when an order becomes locked or crossed by an away market quote during the Midday Auction Pause, should provide Exchange member organizations with appropriate options to help them comply with their best-execution duties to their customers. Furthermore, the Commission believes that providing for the cancellation or rejection of non-displayed orders during the Midday Auction Pause provides clarity as to how the Exchange intends the proposed auction to operate in regard to order execution. Additionally, the Commission believes that limiting the Midday Auction execution price to the lower (for a buy imbalance) or higher (for a sell imbalance) of the Exchange's LULD Band or Trading Collar Band, at the time of the Midday Auction, should mitigate the risk of an execution at prices that are too far away from the prevailing price of a given security in continuous trading on other national securities exchanges and trading venues. Finally, the Commission believes that the Exchange's proposed technical revisions, and additional explanation regarding the proposal, will provide market participants more clarity regarding how the proposed rule is intended to operate.
The Commission finds that Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. Approval is needed for security reasons such as mortgages submitted by the public for recording against aircraft, engines, propellers, and spare parts locations.
Written comments should be submitted by July 28, 2015.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda Thompson, Room 300, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of RTCA Program Management Committee Meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of RTCA Program Management Committee.
The meeting will be held June 18th from 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street, Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, Tel: (202) 330-0654.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Program Management Committee. The agenda will include the following:
1. Welcome and introductions
2. Review/Approve meeting summary
a. March 24, 2015, RTCA paper no. 119-15/PMC-1332
3. Publication consideration/approval
a. Final draft, revised document, DO-200A—standards for processing aeronautical data, prepared by SC-217.
b. Final draft, revised document, DO-230D—standard for airport security access control systems, prepared by SC-224.
c. Final draft, revised document, DO-311—minimum operational performance standards for rechargeable lithium battery systems, prepared by SC-225.
4. Integration and coordination committee (ICC)
a. Task status—SC-186/SC-227 A-IM concept—discussion.
5. Action item review
a. PMC ad hoc—standards overlap and alignment—discussion—workshop status.
b. SC-229—406 MHz emergency locator transmitters (ELTs)—discussion—coordination status—aircraft tracking and in-flight triggering
c. SC-159—global positioning system—discussion—revised terms of reference (TOR)
6. Discussion
a. SC-214—standards for air traffic data communication services—discussion—revised TOR
b. SC-217—aeronautical databases—discussion—revised TOR
c. Wake vortex tiger team—discussion—white paper—review/approve
d. Minimum operational performance standards for small cell non-rechargeable lithium batteries—discussion—possible new special committee to revise RTCA DO-227
e. SC-233—addressing human factors/pilot interface issues for avionics—discussion—document table of contents “buckets”
f. Design assurance guidance for airborne electronic hardware—status—possible new special committee to update RTCA DO-254
g. SC-186—automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast—discussion—BADA testing criteria/MITRE software FastLicense
h. NAC—status update
i. FAA actions taken on previously published documents—report
j. Special committees—chairmen's reports and active inter-special committee requirements agreements (ISRA)—review
k. European/EUROCAE coordination—status update
7. Other business
8. Schedule for committee deliverables and next meeting date Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The respondents to this information collection are FAR Part 135 and Part 121 operators seeking airman certification and approval of aircraft dispatcher courses. The FAA uses the information to ensure compliance and adherence to the regulations.
Written comments should be submitted by July 28, 2015.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda Thompson, Room 300, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Fourth Meeting Notice of Special Committee 230.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the fourth meeting of Special Committee 230.
The meeting will be held June 16th-18th from 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at The Boeing Company, 635 Park Avenue, N Renton, WA 98057, Tel: (202) 330-0663.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Special Committee 230. The agenda will include the following:
1. Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
2. Agenda Overview
3. Meeting #3 Minutes approval
4. Discussion of activities with EUROCAE WG-95
5. Review of final findings from DO-220 draft
1. Review of issues being addressed in DO-213
2. Review of findings from DO-213 draft
1. Review of findings from DO-213 draft
2. Action Item Review
3. Other Actions
4. FRAC Progress
5. Date and Place of Next Meetings
6. Adjourn
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Sixty-Third Meeting Notice of Subcommittee 186.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the sixty-third meeting of Subcommittee 186.
The meeting will be held June 8th-12th from 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at Erzabt-Klotz Strasse 1, 5020 Salzburg, Austria, Tel: (202) 330-0654.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the NextGen Advisory Committee. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Fourteenth Meeting Notice of Subcommittee 227.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the fourteenth meeting of the Subcommittee 227.
The meeting will be held June 15th-19th from 9:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, Tel: (202) 330-0663.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the NextGen Advisory Committee. The agenda will include the following:
1. Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
2. Agenda Overview
3. Overview of Planned Work Program for the Week
a. Action Items Review
b. MOPS Draft Review
c. Miscellaneous Items
4. Plenary Review/Discussion
a. Planned Work Schedule (Note, schedule subject to change)
b. Draft MOPS Issues
c. CNS-ATM appendix: Interval Management Operations, addition or not at this time.
d. Status of new working group for map MOPS
e. Release of the MOPS (Rev to DO-283A) for FRAC
5. Technical Requirements Breakout Sessions (as needed)
6. Other Business
1. Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
2. Agenda Overview
3. Overview of Planned Work Program for the Week
a. Action Items Review
b. MOPS Draft Review
c. Miscellaneous Items
4. Plenary Review/Discussion
a. Planned Work Schedule (Note, schedule subject to change)
b. Draft MOPS Issues
c. CNS-ATM appendix: Interval Management Operations, addition or not at this time.
d. Status of new working group for map MOPS
e. Release of the MOPS (Rev to DO-283A) for FRAC
5. Technical Requirements Breakout Sessions (as needed)
6. Other Business
1. Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
2. Agenda Overview
3. Overview of Planned Work Program for the Week
a. Action Items Review
b. MOPS Draft Review
c. Miscellaneous Items
4. Plenary Review/Discussion
a. Planned Work Schedule (Note, schedule subject to change)
b. Draft MOPS Issues
c. CNS-ATM appendix: Interval Management Operations, addition or not at this time.
d. Status of new working group for map MOPS
e. Release of the MOPS (Rev to DO-283A) for FRAC
5. Technical Requirements Breakout Sessions (as needed)
6. Other Business
1. Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
2. Agenda Overview
3. Overview of Planned Work Program for the Week
a. Action Items Review
b. MOPS Draft Review
c. Miscellaneous Items
4. Plenary Review/Discussion
a. Planned Work Schedule (Note, schedule subject to change)
b. Draft MOPS Issues
c. CNS-ATM appendix: Interval Management Operations, addition or not at this time.
d. Status of new working group for map MOPS
e. Release of the MOPS (Rev to DO-283A) for FRAC
5. Technical Requirements Breakout Sessions (as needed)
6. Other Business
1. Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
2. Agenda Overview
3. Overview of Planned Work Program for the Week
a. Action Items Review
b. MOPS Draft Review
c. Miscellaneous Items
4. Plenary Review/Discussion
a. Planned Work Schedule (Note, schedule subject to change)
b. Draft MOPS Issues
c. CNS-ATM appendix: Interval Management Operations, addition or not at this time.
d. Status of new working group for map MOPS
e. Release of the MOPS (Rev to DO-283A) for FRAC
5. Technical Requirements Breakout Sessions (as needed)
6. Other Business
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The information is collected from holders of FAA production approvals and selected suppliers to obtain their input on how well the agency is performing the administration and conduct of the Aircraft Certification Systems Evaluation Program (ACSEP).
Written comments should be submitted by July 28, 2015.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda Thompson, Room 300, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. Non-Federal navigation facilities are electrical/electronic aids to air navigation which are purchased, installed, operated, and maintained by an entity other than the FAA and are available for use by the flying public.
Written comments should be submitted by July 28, 2015.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda Thompson, Room 300, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Fifth Meeting Notice of Special Committee 231.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the fifth meeting of the Special Committee 231.
The meeting will be held June 9th-11th from 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, Tel: (202) 330-0663.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Special Committee 231. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. Regulation generates a need for new designated pilot examiners and designated airworthiness representatives to support the certification of new light-sport aircraft, pilots, flight instructors, and ground instructors.
Written comments should be submitted by July 28, 2015.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda Thompson, Room 300, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Twenty-Fourth Meeting Notice of Subcommittee 217.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the twenty-fourth meeting of the Subcommittee 217.
The meeting will be held June 15th-19th from 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, Tel: (202) 330-0663.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby
1. Open Plenary Session
a. Co-Chairmen's remarks and introductions
b. Approve minutes from 23nd meeting
c. Review and approve meeting agenda for 24rd meeting
d. ED-76A—DO-200B progress status
e. Discussion on the outcome of DO-201A/ED-77 Scoping Exercise
f. Schedule and working arrangements for this week
2. FRAC and Open Consultation Resolution
a. DO-272/ED-99, DO-276/ED-98, DO-291/ED-119—FRAC and Open Consultation Resolution
b. Overview of comments received—by FRAC Preparation Team
c. Resolution of individual comments by priority
d. Summary of FRAC resolution
e. Action Plan to get the final document draft copies to RTCA and EUROCAEWelcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
1. Open Plenary Session
a. Co-Chairmen's remarks and introductions
b. Approve minutes from 23nd meeting
c. Review and approve meeting agenda for 24rd meeting
d. ED-76A—DO-200B progress status
e. Discussion on the outcome of DO-201A/ED-77 Scoping Exercise
f. Schedule and working arrangements for this week
2. FRAC and Open Consultation Resolution
a. DO-272/ED-99, DO-276/ED-98, DO-291/ED-119—FRAC and Open Consultation Resolution
b. Overview of comments received—by FRAC Preparation Team
c. Resolution of individual comments by priority
d. Summary of FRAC resolution
e. Action Plan to get the final document draft copies to RTCA and EUROCAEWelcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
1. Open Plenary Session
a. Co-Chairmen's remarks and introductions
b. Approve minutes from 23nd meeting
c. Review and approve meeting agenda for 24rd meeting
d. ED-76A—DO-200B progress status
e. Discussion on the outcome of DO-201A/ED-77 Scoping Exercise
f. Schedule and working arrangements for this week
2. FRAC and Open Consultation Resolution
a. DO-272/ED-99, DO-276/ED-98, DO-291/ED-119—FRAC and Open Consultation Resolution
b. Overview of comments received—by FRAC Preparation Team
c. Resolution of individual comments by priority
d. Summary of FRAC resolution
e. Action Plan to get the final document draft copies to RTCA and EUROCAEWelcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
1. Open Plenary Session
a. Co-Chairmen's remarks and introductions
b. Approve minutes from 23nd meeting
c. Review and approve meeting agenda for 24rd meeting
d. ED-76A—DO-200B progress status
e. Discussion on the outcome of DO-201A/ED-77 Scoping Exercise
f. Schedule and working arrangements for this week
2. FRAC and Open Consultation Resolution
a. DO-272/ED-99, DO-276/ED-98, DO-291/ED-119—FRAC and Open Consultation Resolution
b. Overview of comments received—by FRAC Preparation Team
c. Resolution of individual comments by priority
d. Summary of FRAC resolution
e. Action Plan to get the final document draft copies to RTCA and EUROCAEWelcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
1. Open Plenary Session
a. Co-Chairmen's remarks and introductions
b. Approve minutes from 23nd meeting
c. Review and approve meeting agenda for 24rd meeting
d. ED-76A—DO-200B progress status
e. Discussion on the outcome of DO-201A/ED-77 Scoping Exercise
f. Schedule and working arrangements for this week
2. FRAC and Open Consultation Resolution
a. DO-272/ED-99, DO-276/ED-98, DO-291/ED-119—FRAC and Open Consultation Resolution
b. Overview of comments received—by FRAC Preparation Team
c. Resolution of individual comments by priority
d. Summary of FRAC resolution
e. Action Plan to get the final document draft copies to RTCA and EUROCAEWelcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
3. Closing Plenary Session
a. Approval of Documents for the PMC/TAC Meeting in September 2015
b. Next meetings, TORs, dates, locations
c. Any other business and Adjourn
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. Information is collected from applicants who wish to obtain repair station certification. Applicants must submit FAA form 8310-3 to the appropriate FAA flight standards district office for review.
Written comments should be submitted by July 28, 2015.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda Thompson, Room 300, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at:
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
By this notice the Maritime Administration (MARAD) announces the “
This policy is effective upon publication in the
You may contact Clifford Johnson, Office of Cargo and Commercial Sealift, Maritime Administration, at (202) 366-2105. You may send mail to Mr. Johnson at Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., MAR 620, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may send electronic mail to
The promotion of the United States maritime industry is a central mission of MARAD. The Merchant Marine Act of 1936 was enacted to promote a well-equipped and efficient fleet owned and operated by United States citizens and supported by domestic shipbuilding and repair facilities.
It is central to MARAD's promotional mission to encourage and aid the development of the U.S. merchant maritime industry. 49 U.S.C. 109(b). Consistent with the Military Cargo Preference Act of 1904 and the Cargo Preference Act of 1954, as implemented by 46 CFR part 381, MARAD's Office of Cargo and Sealift Support maintains a program to ensure compliance with statutory requirements requiring U.S.-flag vessel carriage of Government-generated cargo. Just as important as encouraging the use of U.S.-flag vessels for the carriage of Government-generated cargo, it is part of MARAD's mission to encourage both private parties and Government agencies to use U.S.-flag vessels to carry their goods. The purpose of the
By this notice, MARAD announces the establishment of the
MARAD will develop a
MARAD will have the right, at all reasonable times, to examine an award recipient's goods, services, and promotional activities employing a
The license is not assignable. Award recipients may not share the use of the
Entities may apply, self-nominate, or be nominated for recognition by third-parties including Government agencies. MARAD reserves the right to request additional information to support nominations and to verify those nominations and supporting information. Individuals that make nominations will be required to certify that, to the best of their knowledge, the entity they are nominating is eligible for the specified
MARAD will consider the information contained in a nomination or application to be business confidential and will treat it as such to the extent permitted by law.
MARAD will determine whether nominated entities have any business before or are under investigation by regulatory agencies. If MARAD determines that adverse information exists that would likely be adverse to the U.S. Government should the
These awards will recognize non-Governmental shipper entities that achieve specified U.S.-flag vessel usage rates for a calendar year as determined by gross revenue tons. Entities eligible to receive awards include any U.S. or foreign entity that achieved at least the applicable percentage threshold for U.S.-flag carriage during the applicable calendar year of their domestic movements of goods or international shipments other than Government-generated cargo. Covered carriage includes imports, exports, water carriage outside the United States, and freight and cargo shipments between points in the United States, including goods that might otherwise move over land. Recipients will be permitted to display the
These awards will recognize private and Governmental entities which have at least 50% of their staffs involved in booking or cargo-preference-related processes successfully complete the Office of Cargo and Commercial Sealift online cargo preference training courses. These courses are currently under development and the first awards would be made for activities undertaken in 2016. Recipients would qualify to display the blue
MARAD will accept nominations for noteworthy, non-numerical contributions to the utilization of U.S.-flag vessels through an annual nomination process. Up to six private or Governmental entities or individuals may receive this award annually. Eligible recipients include any individual or entity that engaged in activities other than the marketing of products that assisted or facilitated the usage of U.S.-flag carriage by providing financing, transportation, promotion, or other export or import assistance or facilitation service during the applicable calendar year. Recipients would receive official recognition from MARAD and would be permitted to use a special, red-white-and-blue
• Exclusive use of U.S.-flag carriage to the extent available.
• Significantly increased usage of U.S.-flag carriage through voluntary action.
• Exceptional advocacy encouraging the use of U.S.-flag vessels or compliance with MARAD's cargo preference requirements.
• Exceptional facilitation of U.S.-flag vessel usage.
• Development of technical advances or commercial practices that facilitate or enhance U.S.-flag vessel usage.
• Employment of high-performance business processes to ensure U.S.-flag vessel usage.
Consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act and Department of Transportation rulemaking policy, MARAD is publishing this notice in the
Under Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and, is, therefore, not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Receipt of petition.
This document announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that nonconforming model year (MY) 1991 BMW M3 convertible passenger cars that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), are eligible for importation into the United States because they have safety features that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all such standards.
June 29, 2015.
Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above and submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and times give above. The documents may also be viewed on the Internet at
The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will be published in the
George Stevens, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-5308).
Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS, and has no substantially similar U.S.-certified counterpart, shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle has safety features that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable FMVSS based on destructive test data or such other evidence as NHTSA decides to be adequate.
Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the
G&K Automotive Conversion, Inc. of Santa Ana, CA (Registered Importer R90-007) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming MY 1991 BMW M3 convertible passenger cars are eligible for importation into the United States.
G&K noted in its petition that although conforming MY 1991 BMW M3 vehicles were not sold in the U.S., NHTSA has determined that nonconforming MY 1989 BMW M3 vehicles are eligible for importation. G&K compared the nonconforming MY 1991 BMW M3 vehicles to the nonconforming MY 1989 BMW M3 vehicles that have been determined eligible for importation, and based its arguments that the 1991 BMW M3 vehicles conform to many applicable FMVSS, and are capable of being altered to meet the remainder of the applicable FMVSS, in part, on the similarities between the MY 1989 and MY 1991 vehicles.
Specifically, the petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified MY 1991 BMW M3 convertible passenger cars, as originally manufactured, conform to: Standard Nos. 102
The petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being altered to meet the following standards, in the manner indicated:
Standard No. 101
Standard No. 108
Standard No. 110
Standard No. 111
Standard No. 114
Standard No. 208
The petitioner also states that a vehicle identification plate must be affixed to the vehicles near the left windshield post to meet the requirements of 49 CFR part 565 and that a certification label must be affixed to the driver's door jamb to meet the requirements of 49 CFR part 567.
49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.7; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
New Hampshire Central Railroad, Inc. (NHCR) filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR part 1152 subpart F—
NHCR has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years; (2) there is no overhead traffic on the Line; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the Line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the Line either is pending before the Surface Transportation Board or any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of a complainant within the two-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the discontinuance shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) to subsidize continued rail service has been received, this exemption will become effective on June 30, 2015 (50 days after the filing of the exemption), unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues and formal expressions of intent to file an OFA to subsidize continued rail service under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2)
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to NHCR's representative: Jack E. Dodd, Rail Business Consultant, 73 Bishop St., Saint Albans, VT 05478.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of 1 individual and 2 entities whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13224 and whose names have been added to OFAC's list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List). OFAC is also publishing identifying information relating to 9 aircraft that OFAC has determined to be property in which Mahan Air, a person designated under E.O. 13224, has an interest, and which therefore are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224.
OFAC's actions described in this notice were effective May 21, 2015.
Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202/622-2420, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202/622-2490, Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202/622-2480, Office of Foreign Assets Control, or Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202/622-2410, Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Treasury (not toll free numbers).
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available from OFAC's Web site (
On May 21, 2015, OFAC blocked the property and interests in property of the following 1 individual and 2 entities pursuant to E.O. 13224, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To
Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before June 29, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by email at
Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before June 29, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by emailing
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of intent to distribute offset for Fiscal Year 2015.
Pursuant to the
Certifications to obtain a continued dumping and subsidy offset under a particular order or finding must be received by July 28, 2015. Any certification received after July 28, 2015 will be denied, making claimants ineligible for the distribution.
Certifications and any other correspondence (whether by mail, or an express or courier service) must be addressed to the Assistant Commissioner, Office of Administration, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Revenue Division, Attention: CDSOA Team, 6650 Telecom Drive, Suite 100, Indianapolis, IN, 46278.
CDSOA Team, Revenue Division, 6650 Telecom Drive, Suite 100, Indianapolis, IN, 46278; telephone (317) 614-4462.
The
The CDSOA amended title VII of the
(A) Was a petitioner or interested party in support of a petition with respect to which an antidumping order, a finding under the
(B) Remains in operation continuing to produce the product covered by the countervailing duty order, the antidumping duty order, or the finding under the
(C) Has not been acquired by another company or business that is related to a company that opposed the antidumping or countervailing duty investigation that led to the order or finding (e.g., opposed the petition or otherwise presented evidence in opposition to the petition).
The distribution that these parties may receive is known as the continued dumping and subsidy offset.
Section 7601(a) of the
Consequently, the full impact of the CDSOA repeal on amounts available for distribution may be delayed for several years. Because of the statutory constraints in the assessments of antidumping and countervailing duties, the distribution process will be continued for an undetermined period. It should also be noted that amounts distributed may be subject to recovery as a result of reliquidations, court actions, administrative errors, and other reasons.
On March 10, 2014, President Obama ordered the sequester of non-exempt budgetary resources for Fiscal Year 2015 pursuant to section 251A of the
It is the responsibility of the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) to ascertain and timely forward to CBP a list of the affected domestic producers that are potentially eligible to receive an offset in connection with an order or finding. In this regard, it is noted that USITC has supplied CBP with the list of individual antidumping and countervailing duty cases, and the affected domestic producers associated with each case who are potentially eligible to receive an offset. This list appears at the end of this document.
A significant amount of litigation has challenged various provisions of the CDSOA, including the definition of the term “affected domestic producer.” In two decisions the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) upheld the constitutionality of the support requirement contained in the CDSOA. Specifically, in
Domestic producers who are not on the USITC list but believe they nonetheless are eligible for a CDSOA distribution under one or more antidumping and/or countervailing duty cases are required, as are all potential claimants that expressly appear on the list, to properly file their certification(s) within 60 days after this notice is published. Such domestic producers must allege all other bases for eligibility in their certification(s). CBP will evaluate the merits of such claims in accordance with the relevant statutes, regulations, and decisions. Certifications that are not timely filed within the requisite 60 days and/or that fail to sufficiently establish a basis for eligibility will be summarily denied. Additionally, CBP may not make a final decision regarding a claimant's eligibility to receive funds until certain legal issues which may affect that claimant's eligibility are resolved. In these instances, CBP may withhold an amount of funds corresponding to the claimant's alleged
It should also be noted that the CAFC ruled in
It is noted that CBP published Treasury Decision (T.D.) 01-68 (Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset to Affected Domestic Producers) in the
This document announces that CBP intends to distribute to affected domestic producers the assessed antidumping or countervailing duties that are available for distribution in Fiscal Year 2015 in connection with those antidumping duty orders or findings or countervailing duty orders that are listed in this document. All distributions will be issued by paper check to the address provided by the claimants. Section 159.62(a) of title 19, Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 159.62(a)) provides that CBP will publish such a notice of intention to distribute assessed duties at least 90 calendar days before the end of a fiscal year. Failure to publish the notice at least 90 calendar days before the end of the fiscal year will not impact an affected domestic producer's obligation to file a timely certification within 60 days after the notice is published.
To obtain a distribution of the offset under a given order or finding, an affected domestic producer (and anyone alleging eligibility to receive a distribution) must submit a certification for each order or finding under which a distribution is sought, to CBP, indicating their desire to receive a distribution. To be eligible to obtain a distribution, certifications must be received by CBP no later than 60 calendar days after the date of publication of this notice of intent to distribute in the
As required by 19 CFR 159.62(b), this notice provides the case name and number of the order or finding concerned, as well as the specific instructions for filing a certification under section 159.63 to claim a distribution. Section 159.62(b) also provides that the dollar amounts subject to distribution that are contained in the Special Account for each listed order or finding are to appear in this notice. However, these dollar amounts were not available in time for inclusion in this publication. The preliminary amounts will be posted on the CBP Web site (
CBP will provide general information to claimants regarding the preparation of certification(s). However, it remains the sole responsibility of the domestic producer to ensure that the certification is correct, complete, and accurate so as to demonstrate the eligibility of the domestic producer for the distribution requested. Failure to ensure that the certification is correct, complete, and accurate as provided in this notice will result in the domestic producer not receiving a distribution.
Specifically, to obtain a distribution of the offset under a given order or finding, each potential claimant must timely submit a certification containing the required information detailed below as to the eligibility of the domestic producer (or anyone alleging eligibility) to receive the requested distribution and the total amount of the distribution that the domestic producer is claiming. Certifications should be submitted to the Assistant Commissioner, Office of Administration, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Revenue Division, Attention: CDSOA Team, 6650 Telecom Drive, Suite 100, Indianapolis, IN, 46278. The certification must enumerate the qualifying expenditures incurred by the domestic producer since the issuance of an order or finding and it must demonstrate that the domestic producer is eligible to receive a distribution as an affected domestic producer or allege another basis for eligibility. Any false statements made in connection with certifications submitted to CBP may give rise to liability under the
A successor to a company that was an affected domestic producer at the time of acquisition should consult 19 CFR 159.61(b)(1)(i). Any company claiming to be the successor company to an
A member company (or its successor) of an association that appears on the list of affected domestic producers in this notice, where the member company itself does not appear on this list, should consult 19 CFR 159.61(b)(1)(ii). Specifically, for a certification under 19 CFR 159.61(b)(1)(ii), the claimant must name the association of which it is a member, specifically establish that it was a member of the association at the time the association filed the petition with the USITC, and establish that the claimant is a current member of the association.
In order to promote accurate filings and more efficiently process the distributions, we offer the following guidance:
• If claimants are members of an association but the association does not file on their behalf, each association will need to provide their members with a statement that contains notarized company-specific information including dates of membership and an original signature from an authorized representative of the association.
• An association filing a certification on behalf of a member must also provide a power of attorney or other evidence of legal authorization from each of the domestic producers it is representing.
• An association filing a certification on behalf of a member is responsible for verifying the accuracy of the member's financial records, which support their claim, and is responsible for that certification.
• Any association filing a certification on behalf of a member is responsible for verifying the legal sufficiency and accuracy of the member's financial records, which support the claim, and may be liable for repayment of any claim found to have been paid in error.
The association may file a certification in its own right to claim an offset for that order or finding, but its qualifying expenditures would be limited to those expenditures that the association itself has incurred after the date of the order or finding in connection with the particular case.
As provided in 19 CFR 159.63(a), certifications to obtain a distribution of an offset must be received by CBP no later than 60 calendar days after the date of publication of the notice of intent in the
A list of all certifications received will be published on the CBP Web site (
While there is no required format for a certification, CBP has developed a standard certification form to aid claimants in filing certifications. The certification form is available at
(1) The date of this
(2) The Commerce case number;
(3) The case name (producer/country);
(4) The name of the domestic producer and any name qualifier, if applicable (for example, any other name under which the domestic producer does business or is also known);
(5) The mailing address of the domestic producer (if a post office box, the physical street address must also appear) including, if applicable, a specific room number or department;
(6) The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) number (with suffix) of the domestic producer, employer identification number, or social security number, as applicable;
(7) The specific business organization of the domestic producer (corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship);
(8) The name(s) of any individual(s) designated by the domestic producer as the contact person(s) concerning the certification, together with the phone number(s), mailing address, and, if available, facsimile transmission number(s) and electronic mail (e-mail) address(es) for the person(s). Correspondence from CBP may be directed to the designated contact(s) by either mail or phone or both;
(9) The total dollar amount claimed;
(10) The dollar amount claimed by category, as described in the section below entitled “Amount Claimed for Distribution”;
(11) A statement of eligibility, as described in the section below entitled “Eligibility to Receive Distribution”; and
(12) For certifications not submitted electronically through
Qualifying expenditures that may be offset under the CDSOA encompass those expenditures incurred by the domestic producer after issuance of an antidumping duty order or finding or a countervailing duty order, and prior to its termination, provided that such expenditures fall within certain categories. The repeal language parallels the termination of an order. Therefore, for duty orders or findings that have not been previously revoked, expenses must be incurred before October 1, 2007, to be eligible for offset. For duty orders or findings that have been revoked, expenses must be incurred before the effective date of the revocation to be eligible for offset. For example, assume for case A-331-802 certain frozen warm-water shrimp and prawns from Ecuador, that the order date is February 1, 2005, and that the revocation effective date is August 15, 2007. In this case, eligible expenditures would have to be incurred between February 1, 2005, and August 15, 2007.
For the convenience and ease of the domestic producers, CBP is providing guidance on what the agency takes into consideration when making a calculation for each of the following categories:
(1) Manufacturing facilities (Any facility used for the transformation of raw material into a finished product that is the subject of the related order or finding);
(2) Equipment (Goods that are used in a business environment to aid in the manufacturing of a product that is the subject of the related order or finding);
(3) Research and development (Seeking knowledge and determining the best techniques for production of the product that is the subject of the related order or finding);
(4) Personnel training (Teaching of specific useful skills to personnel, that will improve performance in the
(5) Acquisition of technology (Acquisition of applied scientific knowledge and materials to achieve an objective in the production process of the product that is the subject of the related order or finding);
(6) Health care benefits for employees paid for by the employer (Health care benefits paid to employees who are producing the specific product that is the subject of the related order or finding);
(7) Pension benefits for employees paid for by the employer (Pension benefits paid to employees who are producing the specific product that is the subject of the related order or finding);
(8) Environmental equipment, training, or technology (Equipment, training, or technology used in the production of the product that is the subject of the related order or finding, that will assist in preventing potentially harmful factors from impacting the environment);
(9) Acquisition of raw materials and other inputs (Purchase of unprocessed materials or other inputs needed for the production of the product that is the subject of the related order or finding); and
(10) Working capital or other funds needed to maintain production (Assets of a business that can be applied to its production of the product that is the subject of the related order or finding).
In calculating the amount of the distribution being claimed as an offset, the certification must indicate:
(1) The total amount of any qualifying expenditures previously certified by the domestic producer, and the amount certified by category;
(2) The total amount of those expenditures which have been the subject of any prior distribution for the order or finding being certified under 19 U.S.C. 1675c; and
(3) The net amount for new and remaining qualifying expenditures being claimed in the current certification (the total amount previously certified as noted in item “(1)” above minus the total amount that was the subject of any prior distribution as noted in item “(2)” above). In accordance with 19 CFR 159.63(b)(2)(i)-(iii), CBP will deduct the amount of any prior distribution from the producer's claimed amount for that case. Total amounts disbursed by CBP under the CDSOA for some prior Fiscal Years are available on the CBP Web site.
Additionally, under 19 CFR 159.61(c), these qualifying expenditures must be related to the production of the same product that is the subject of the order or finding, with the exception of expenses incurred by associations which must be related to a specific case. Any false statements made to CBP concerning the amount of distribution being claimed as an offset may give rise to liability under the
As noted, the certification must contain a statement that the domestic producer desires to receive a distribution and is eligible to receive the distribution as an affected domestic producer or on another legal basis. Also, the domestic producer must affirm that the net amount certified for distribution does not encompass any qualifying expenditures for which distribution has previously been made (19 CFR 159.63(b)(3)(i)). Any false statements made in connection with certifications submitted to CBP may give rise to liability under the
Furthermore, under 19 CFR 159.63(b)(3)(ii), where a domestic producer files a separate certification for more than one order or finding using the same qualifying expenditures as the basis for distribution in each case, each certification must list all the other orders or findings where the producer is claiming the same qualifying expenditures.
Moreover, as required by 19 U.S.C. 1675c(b)(1) and 19 CFR 159.63(b)(3)(iii), the certification must include information as to whether the domestic producer remains in operation at the time the certifications are filed and continues to produce the product covered by the particular order or finding under which the distribution is sought. If a domestic producer is no longer in operation, or no longer produces the product covered by the order or finding, the producer will not be considered an affected domestic producer entitled to receive a distribution.
In addition, as required by 19 U.S.C. 1675c(b)(5) and 19 CFR 159.63(b)(3)(iii), the domestic producer must state whether it has been acquired by a company that opposed the investigation or was acquired by a business related to a company that opposed the investigation. If a domestic producer has been so acquired, the producer will not be considered an affected domestic producer entitled to receive a distribution. However, CBP may not make a final decision regarding a claimant's eligibility to receive funds until certain legal issues which may affect that claimant's eligibility are resolved. In these instances, CBP may withhold an amount of funds corresponding to the claimant's alleged
The certification must be executed and dated by a party legally authorized to bind the domestic producer and it must state that the information contained in the certification is true and accurate to the best of the certifier's knowledge and belief under penalty of law, and that the domestic producer has records to support the qualifying expenditures being claimed (see section below entitled “Verification of Certification”). Moreover as provided in 19 CFR 159.64(b)(3), overpayments to affected domestic producers are recoverable by CBP and CBP reserves the right to use all available collection tools to recover overpayments, including but not limited to garnishments, court orders, administrative offset, enrollment in the Treasury Offset Program, and/or offset of tax refund payments. Overpayments may occur for a variety of reasons such as reliquidations, court actions, settlements, insufficient verification of a certification in response to an inquiry from CBP, and administrative errors. With diminished amounts available over time, the likelihood that these events will require the recovery of funds previously distributed will increase. As a result, domestic producers who receive distributions under the CDSOA may wish to set aside any funds received in case it is subsequently determined that an overpayment has occurred. CBP considers the submission of a certification and the negotiation of any distribution checks received as acknowledgements and acceptance of the claimant's obligation to return those funds upon demand.
A certification that is submitted in response to this notice of distribution and received within 60 calendar days after the date of publication of the notice in the
Certifications are subject to CBP's verification. Claimants may also be required to provide copies of additional records for further review by CBP. Therefore, parties are required to maintain records supporting their claims for a period of five years after the filing of the certification (19 CFR 159.63(d)). The records must support each qualifying expenditure enumerated in the certification, and they must support how the qualifying expenditures are determined to be related to the production of the product covered by the order or finding. Although CBP will accept comments and information from the public and other domestic producers, CBP retains complete discretion regarding the initiation and conduct of investigations stemming from such information. In the event that a distribution is made to a domestic producer from whom CBP later seeks verification of the certification and sufficient supporting documentation is not provided as determined by CBP, then the amounts paid to the affected domestic producer are recoverable by CBP as an overpayment. CBP reserves the right to use all available collection tools to recover overpayments, including but not limited to garnishments, court orders, administrative offset, enrollment in the Treasury Offset Program, and/or offset of tax refund payments. CBP considers the submission of a certification and the negotiation of any distribution checks received as acknowledgements and acceptance of the claimant's obligation to return those funds upon demand. Additionally, the submission of false statements, documents, or records in connection with a certification or verification of a certification may give rise to liability under the
The name of the claimant, the total dollar amount claimed by the party on the certification, as well as the total dollar amount that CBP actually disburses to that affected domestic producer as an offset, will be available for disclosure to the public, as specified in 19 CFR 159.63(e). To this extent, the submission of the certification is construed as an understanding and acceptance on the part of the domestic producer that this information will be disclosed to the public and a waiver of any right to privacy or non-disclosure. Additionally, a statement in a certification that this information is proprietary and exempt from disclosure may result in CBP's rejection of the certification.
The list of individual antidumping duty orders or findings and countervailing duty orders is set forth below together with the affected domestic producers associated with each order or finding who are potentially eligible to receive an offset. Those domestic producers not on the list must allege another basis for eligibility in their certification. Appearance of a domestic producer on the list is not a guarantee of distribution.
| 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 |