| Page Range | 46181-46484 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 80 FR 46181 - Implementing the National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States for 2015-2020 | |
| 80 FR 46375 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 80 FR 46339 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 80 FR 46251 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 80 FR 46326 - Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Registration: National Center for Natural Products Research (NIDA MPROJECT), Inc. | |
| 80 FR 46334 - Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Registration: Cody Laboratories, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 46323 - Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Registration: Sigma Aldrich Research Biochemicals, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 46334 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Cedarburg Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 46336 - Importer of Controlled Substances Registration: Meridian Medical Technologies | |
| 80 FR 46328 - Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Registration: Cayman Chemicals Company | |
| 80 FR 46335 - Importer of Controlled Substances Registration: Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 46245 - Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules From the People's Republic of China: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review | |
| 80 FR 46316 - Notice of Temporary Closure and Temporary Restrictions of Specific Uses on Public Lands for the Burning Man Event, Pershing County, NV | |
| 80 FR 46327 - Importer of Controlled Substances Registration: Sigma-Aldrich International GMBH, Sigma Aldrich Co., LLC | |
| 80 FR 46330 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Research Triangle Institute | |
| 80 FR 46234 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 46235 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 46238 - 2017 Economic Census | |
| 80 FR 46382 - Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Cal Black Memorial Airport, Halls Crossing Replacement Airport | |
| 80 FR 46380 - Guidance on the Procedures and Process To Petition the Secretary Under the Airport and Airways Improvement Act | |
| 80 FR 46245 - Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 | |
| 80 FR 46384 - Receipt of Noise Compatibility Program and Request for Review; Laughlin/Bullhead International Airport, Bullhead City, Arizona | |
| 80 FR 46379 - Notice of Intent To Rule on Release of Airport Property at Upper Cumberland Regional Airport, Sparta, Tennessee | |
| 80 FR 46384 - Buy America Waiver Notification | |
| 80 FR 46243 - Smart Cities Infrastructure Business Development Mission to India; February 8-12, 2016 | |
| 80 FR 46322 - Adeline Davies Essien, M.D.; Decision and Order | |
| 80 FR 46194 - Safety Zones and Regulated Navigation Area; Shell Arctic Drilling/Exploration Vessel and Associated Voluntary First Amendment Area, Portland, OR | |
| 80 FR 46324 - Pedro E. Lopez, M.D.; Decision and Order | |
| 80 FR 46326 - AIM Pharmacy & Surgical S. Corp. Order | |
| 80 FR 46336 - Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Registration: Cambrex Charles City | |
| 80 FR 46254 - Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee | |
| 80 FR 46335 - Importer of Controlled Substances Registration: Almac Clinical Services Inc. (ACSI) | |
| 80 FR 46254 - Orders Granting Authority To Import and Export Natural Gas, To Import and Export Liquefied Natural Gas and To Vacate Prior Authorization During June 2015 | |
| 80 FR 46322 - Importer of Controlled Substances Registration: Johnson Matthey, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 46328 - Importer of Controlled Substances Registration: Hospira | |
| 80 FR 46334 - Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Registration: Johnson Matthey, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 46336 - Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Registration: Pharmacore, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 46378 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Risk Analysis and Management (RAM) | |
| 80 FR 46313 - National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); Assistance to Private Sector Property Insurers, Availability of FY 2016 Arrangement | |
| 80 FR 46208 - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Age in Programs and Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance From the Department of the Treasury | |
| 80 FR 46238 - Upper North River Watershed Dam No. 77, Augusta County, Virginia | |
| 80 FR 46247 - Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee Public Meeting | |
| 80 FR 46287 - Special Diabetes Program for Indians; Community-Directed Grant Program; Announcement Type: New and Competing Continuation | |
| 80 FR 46385 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
| 80 FR 46357 - New Postal Product | |
| 80 FR 46236 - Notice of Affirmation of Revision of a Treatment Schedule for Hot Water Treatment of Mangoes | |
| 80 FR 46185 - Adjustment of Appendices to the Dairy Tariff-Rate Import Quota Licensing Regulation for the 2015 Tariff-Rate Quota Year | |
| 80 FR 46309 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing | |
| 80 FR 46237 - Assessment of Fees for Dairy Import Licenses for the 2016 Tariff-Rate Import Quota Year | |
| 80 FR 46215 - Medicare and Medicaid Programs; CY 2016 Home Health Prospective Payment System Rate Update; Home Health Value-Based Purchasing Model; and Home Health Quality Reporting Requirements; Correction | |
| 80 FR 46250 - Petition for Classification of Vacuum Diffusion Technology as an Anti-Entrapment System Under the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act | |
| 80 FR 46284 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 46192 - Medical Devices; Ear, Nose, and Throat Devices; Classification of the External Upper Esophageal Sphincter Compression Device | |
| 80 FR 46190 - Medical Devices; Immunology and Microbiology Devices; Classification of Trichomonas Vaginalis | |
| 80 FR 46388 - Proposed Information Collection (Fiduciary Agreement) Activity: Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 46261 - WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Demicks Lake Pipeline Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues | |
| 80 FR 46257 - L.S. Starrett Company; Notice of Application Accepted For Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, And Protests | |
| 80 FR 46269 - Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Application | |
| 80 FR 46266 - East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC; Supplemental Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Loudon Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues | |
| 80 FR 46268 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-552); Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 46265 - New York Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Filing | |
| 80 FR 46269 - ISO New England Inc.; Notice of Filing | |
| 80 FR 46263 - California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of Filing | |
| 80 FR 46265 - Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Application | |
| 80 FR 46259 - ITC Grid Development LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order | |
| 80 FR 46269 - Notice Of Revised Procedural Schedule | |
| 80 FR 46270 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-576); Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 46258 - Fair Wind Power Partners, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 80 FR 46256 - Commission Information Collection Activities (Ferc-914); Comment Request; Extension | |
| 80 FR 46259 - American Midstream, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Natchez Pipeline Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues | |
| 80 FR 46264 - Town of Grand Lake, Colorado; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene | |
| 80 FR 46218 - Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations on Certain Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands for the 2015-16 Season | |
| 80 FR 46386 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 46319 - Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; Montana | |
| 80 FR 46252 - Department of the Navy | |
| 80 FR 46253 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Evaluation of the Pell Grant Experiments Under the Experimental Sites Initiative | |
| 80 FR 46267 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 80 FR 46258 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 80 FR 46387 - Advisory Committee on Women Veterans; Solicitation of Nomination for Appointment to the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans | |
| 80 FR 46386 - Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation, Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 46282 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 80 FR 46281 - Request for Nominations of Candidates To Serve on the Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection and Control Advisory Committee (BCCEDCAC) | |
| 80 FR 46281 - Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Health Disparities Subcommittee (HDS) | |
| 80 FR 46338 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Diesel-Powered Equipment in Underground Coal Mines | |
| 80 FR 46287 - Evidentiary Considerations for Integration of Biomarkers in Drug Development; Notice of Public Meeting; Request for Comments | |
| 80 FR 46237 - Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Final Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program (VPA-HIP) | |
| 80 FR 46285 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 46247 - Meeting of the United States Manufacturing Council | |
| 80 FR 46311 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke: Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 46312 - National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases: Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 46307 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute: Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 46214 - Periodic Reporting | |
| 80 FR 46313 - National Institute on Aging: Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 46313 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases: Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 46308 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases: Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 46311 - Center for Scientific Review: Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 46308 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases: Notice of Meetings | |
| 80 FR 46312 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences: Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 46479 - North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)-Updates for 2017 | |
| 80 FR 46315 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Genealogy Index Search Request and Genealogy Records Request. Forms G-1041 and G-1041A; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection | |
| 80 FR 46314 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Application to File Declaration of Intention, Form N-300; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection | |
| 80 FR 46365 - AMG Pantheon Private Equity Fund, LLC, et al.; Notice of Application | |
| 80 FR 46369 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 11.13, Order Execution and Routing | |
| 80 FR 46357 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating To Amending Its Simple Auction Liaison (“SAL”) Rule | |
| 80 FR 46363 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 11.11, Routing to Away Trading Centers | |
| 80 FR 46372 - Little Harbor MultiStrategy Composite Fund and Little Harbor Advisors, LLC; Notice of Application | |
| 80 FR 46362 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 46320 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
| 80 FR 46248 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) Information Collection System | |
| 80 FR 46205 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coral, Coral Reefs, and Live/Hard Bottom Habitats of the South Atlantic Region; Amendment 8; Correction | |
| 80 FR 46239 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; 2016 Census Test | |
| 80 FR 46284 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 46190 - Listing of Color Additives Exempt From Certification; Mica-Based Pearlescent Pigments; Confirmation of Effective Date | |
| 80 FR 46197 - Vet Centers | |
| 80 FR 46286 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 46337 - Comment Request for Proposed Information Collection for Employment and Training Administration Financial Report Form #9130 (OMB Control No. 1205-0461), Extension With Changes | |
| 80 FR 46321 - Certain Communications or Computing Devices and Components Thereof Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation in its Entirety Based Upon Settlement; Termination of Investigation; and Vacatur of Order No. 34; Correction | |
| 80 FR 46251 - Defense Health Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 80 FR 46206 - Airworthiness Directives; Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Sailplanes | |
| 80 FR 46389 - Medicare Program; Prospective Payment System and Consolidated Billing for Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs) for FY 2016, SNF Value-Based Purchasing Program, SNF Quality Reporting Program, and Staffing Data Collection | |
| 80 FR 46345 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations | |
| 80 FR 46368 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 46375 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 46371 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 46359 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To List and Trade Shares of the Cambria Sovereign High Yield Bond ETF and the Cambria Value and Momentum ETF Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 | |
| 80 FR 46271 - Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection Agency's Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) | |
| 80 FR 46280 - Final 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan and 2014 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report | |
| 80 FR 46243 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Services Surveys: BE-125, Quarterly Survey of Transactions in Selected Services and Intellectual Property With Foreign Persons | |
| 80 FR 46248 - Proposed Information Collection Activities To Be Submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB); Request for Comments; Annual Representations and Certification Form | |
| 80 FR 46250 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions | |
| 80 FR 46249 - Procurement List; Additions | |
| 80 FR 46187 - Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 46376 - Announcement of 2016 InnovateHER: Innovating for Women Business Challenge | |
| 80 FR 46339 - Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information | |
| 80 FR 46201 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Consumer and Commercial Products and Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing Operations | |
| 80 FR 46383 - Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Property at the Morgantown Municipal Airport, Morgantown, WV | |
| 80 FR 46320 - Notice of Public Meeting; Wyoming Resource Advisory Council |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Foreign Agricultural Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Census Bureau
Economic Analysis Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents 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.
Office of the Secretary, USDA.
Final rule.
This document sets forth the revised appendices to the Dairy Tariff-Rate Import Quota Licensing Regulation for the 2015 quota year reflecting the cumulative annual transfers from Appendix 1 to Appendix 2 for certain dairy product import licenses permanently surrendered by licensees or revoked by the Licensing Authority.
Abdelsalam El-Farra, Dairy Import Licensing Program, Import Policies and Export Reporting Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, at(202) 720-9439; or by email at:
The Foreign Agricultural Service, under a delegation of authority from the Secretary of Agriculture, administers the Dairy Tariff-Rate Import Quota Licensing Regulation codified at 7 CFR 6.20-6.37 that provides for the issuance of licenses to import certain dairy articles under tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) as set forth in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. These dairy articles may only be entered into the United States at the low-tier tariff by or for the account of a person or firm to whom such licenses have been issued and only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the regulation.
Licenses are issued on a calendar year basis, and each license authorizes the license holder to import a specified quantity and type of dairy article from a specified country of origin. The Import Policies and Export Reporting Division, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, issues these licenses and, in conjunction with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, monitors their use.
The regulation at 7 CFR 6.34(a) states: “Whenever a historical license (Appendix 1) is not issued to an applicant pursuant to the provisions of 6.23, is permanently surrendered or is revoked by the Licensing Authority, the amount of such license will be transferred to Appendix 2.” Section 6.34(b) provides that the cumulative annual transfers will be published in the
Agricultural commodities, Cheese, Dairy products, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 7 CFR part 6 is amended as follows:
Additional U.S. Notes 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 16-23 and 25 to Chapter 4 and General Note 15 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (19 U.S.C. 1202), Pub. L. 97-258, 96 Stat. 1051, as amended (31 U.S.C. 9701), and secs. 103 and 404, Pub. L. 103-465, 108 Stat. 4819(19 U.S.C. 3513 and 3601).
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model ATP airplanes. This AD requires a one-time inspection for solder deposited on the frangible plug of certain engine and auxiliary power unit (APU) fire extinguishers. This AD was prompted by reports of a fire extinguisher that failed to discharge due to solder deposited on the frangible plug of the fire extinguisher. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct solder deposited on the frangible plug of the fire extinguisher, which could result in failure of the fire extinguisher to discharge, and consequent inability to put out a fire in an engine or in the APU.
This AD becomes effective August 19, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 19, 2015.
We must receive comments on this AD by September 18, 2015.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For BAE Systems (Operations) Limited service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom;
For Kidde Graviner service information identified in this AD, contact Kidde Graviner Limited, Mathisen Way, Colnbrook, Slough, Berkshire, SL3 0HB, United Kingdom; telephone: +44 (0)1753 683245, fax: +44 (0)1753 685040.
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. It is also available on the Internet at
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1175; fax: 425-227-1149.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0127R1, dated September 10, 2012 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model ATP airplanes. The MCAI states:
A fire handle on a BAe 146 aeroplane was operated on the ground as a precautionary measure after the throttle cable on the affected engine failed, due to corrosion. The extinguisher failed to discharge.
Investigation results revealed that excess solder, which had been deposited during overhaul on the frangible plug of the extinguisher, prevented the release of the extinguishant. Prompted by this report, Kidde Graviner, the fire extinguisher manufacturer, identified four further extinguishers of similar design that had the same issue. The ATP aeroplane extinguisher is one of those of a similar design.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in the failure of a fire bottle to discharge, which reduces the ability of the fire protection system to extinguish fires in the engine or Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) fire zones, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to the occupants.
For the reasons described above, EASA issued AD 2012-0127 [dated July 10, 2012,
Revision 1 of this [EASA] AD is issued to clarify that new extinguishers P/N 57183 may be fitted with no additional inspection required by this [EASA] AD.
You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
BAE Systems (Operations) Limited and Kidde Graviner have issued the following service information.
• BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin ATP-26-016, dated October 4, 2011. The service information describes procedures for an inspection for solder deposited on the frangible plug of certain engine and APU fire extinguishers.
• Kidde Graviner Service Bulletin 26-080, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011. The service information describes procedures for an inspection for solder deposited on the frangible plug of certain engine and APU fire extinguishers.
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
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Currently, there are no affected airplanes on the U.S. Register. However, if an affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, the required actions will take about 1 work-hour, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to be $85 per airplane.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing $7,042, for a cost of $7,127 per product.
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
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective August 19, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model ATP airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26, Fire Protection.
This AD was prompted by reports of a fire extinguisher that failed to discharge due to solder deposited on the frangible plug of the fire extinguisher. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct solder deposited on the frangible plug of the fire extinguisher, which could result in failure of the fire extinguisher to discharge, and consequent inability to put out a fire in an engine or in the APU.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For airplanes equipped with Kidde Graviner fire extinguishers having part number (P/N) 57183 (all dash numbers): Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect each affected fire extinguisher for solder deposited on the frangible plug of the fire extinguisher, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin ATP-26-016, dated October 4, 2011, and Kidde Graviner Service Bulletin 26-080, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011. If any solder deposit is detected, replace the fire extinguisher with a serviceable fire extinguisher before further flight, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin ATP-26-016, dated October 4, 2011.
(2) Fire extinguishers that meet any condition identified in paragraph (g)(2)(i), (g)(2)(ii), or (g)(2)(iii) of this AD are compliant with the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
(i) Fire extinguishers that have been overhauled by Kidde Graviner or Hugen.
(ii) Fire extinguishers that have been overhauled as specified in Kidde Graviner Service Information Letter (SIL) 01-10, dated July 29, 2010.
(iii) Fire extinguishers that have been overhauled as specified in Kidde Graviner Component Maintenance Manual with Illustrated Parts List 26-21-52, Automatic Extinguishers with Steel Containers Part Numbers 57133, 57135, 57145, and 57183 Series, Revision 17, dated June 13, 2012.
For the purpose of this AD, an overhaul is considered to include replacement of the operating head. Replacement of the pressure relief plug assembly only is not considered an overhaul.
As of the effective date of this AD, do not install a Kidde Graviner fire extinguisher having P/N 57183 (all dash numbers) on any airplane, unless the fire extinguisher meets any condition specified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3), (i)(4), or (i)(5) of this AD.
(1) The fire extinguisher is new.
(2) The fire extinguisher has passed the inspection as specified in the instructions of Kidde Graviner Service Bulletin 26-080, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011.
(3) The fire extinguisher has been overhauled by Kidde Graviner or Hugen.
(4) The fire extinguisher has been overhauled as specified in the instructions of Kidde Graviner SIL 01-10, dated July 29, 2010.
(5) The fire extinguisher has been overhauled in accordance with Kidde Graviner Component Maintenance Manual with Illustrated Parts List 26-21-52, Automatic Extinguishers with Steel Containers Part Numbers 57133, 57135, 57145, and 57183 Series, Revision 17, dated June 13, 2012.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(iii) and (i)(5) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the service information identified in paragraph (j)(1), (j)(2), (j)(3), or (j)(4) of this AD. These documents are not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(1) Kidde Graviner Component Maintenance Manual with Illustrated Parts List 26-21-52, Automatic Extinguishers with Steel Containers Part Numbers 57133, 57135, 57145, and 57183 Series, Revision 13, dated August 9, 2010.
(2) Kidde Graviner Component Maintenance Manual with Illustrated Parts List 26-21-52, Automatic Extinguishers with Steel Containers Part Numbers 57133, 57135, 57145, and 57183 Series, Revision 14, dated August 8, 2011.
(3) Kidde Graviner Component Maintenance Manual with Illustrated Parts List 26-21-52, Automatic Extinguishers with Steel Containers Part Numbers 57133, 57135, 57145, and 57183 Series, Revision 15, dated January 16, 2012.
(4) Kidde Graviner Component Maintenance Manual with Illustrated Parts List 26-21-52, Automatic Extinguishers with Steel Containers Part Numbers 57133, 57135, 57145, and 57183 Series, Revision 16, dated May 21, 2012.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0127R1, dated September 10, 2012, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (m)(4), (m)(5), and (m)(6) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin ATP-26-016, dated October 4, 2011.
(ii) Kidde Graviner Service Bulletin 26-080, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011.
(3) For BAE Systems (Operations) Limited service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email
(4) For Kidde Graviner service information identified in this AD, contact Kidde Graviner Limited, Mathisen Way, Colnbrook, Slough, Berkshire, SL3 0HB, United Kingdom; Telephone: +44 (0)1753 683245, Fax: +44 (0)1753 685040.
(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:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule; confirmation of effective date.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is confirming the effective date of July 9, 2015, for the final rule that appeared in the
Effective date of final rule published in the
Ellen Anderson, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835, 240-402-1309.
In the
We gave interested persons until July 8, 2015, to file objections or requests for a hearing. We received no objections or requests for a hearing on the final rule. Therefore, we find that the effective date of the final rule that published in the
Color additives, Cosmetics, Drugs, Foods, Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 342, 343, 348, 351, 352, 355, 361, 362, 371, 379e) and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and redelegated to the Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, we are giving notice that no objections or requests for a hearing were filed in response to the June 8, 2015, final rule. Accordingly, the amendments issued thereby became effective July 9, 2015.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying a
This order is effective August 4, 2015. The classification was applicable April 19, 2011.
Himani Bisht, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5565, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6189.
In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)), devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976), generally referred to as postamendments devices, are classified automatically by statute into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. These devices remain in class III and require premarket approval, unless and until the device is classified or reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807) of the regulations.
Section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, as amended by section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), provides two procedures by which a person may request FDA to classify a device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1). Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act for a device that has not previously been classified and, within 30 days of receiving an order classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2). Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and then a request for classification under the first procedure, the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence and requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. If the person submits a request to classify the device under this second procedure, FDA may decline to undertake the classification request if FDA identifies a legally marketed device that could provide a reasonable basis for review of substantial equivalence with the device or if FDA determines that the device submitted is not of “low-moderate risk” or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls to mitigate the risks cannot be developed.
In response to a request to classify a device under either procedure provided by section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA will classify the device by written order within 120 days. This classification will be the initial classification of the device.
In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, FDA issued an order on April 12, 2011, automatically classifying the APTIMA
In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA reviewed the request for de novo classification in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. FDA classifies devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the information submitted in the request, FDA determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA believes these special controls will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on April 19, 2011, FDA issued an order to the requestor classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding § 866.3860.
Following the effective date of this final classification administrative order, any firm submitting a premarket notification (510(k)) for a
The device is assigned the generic name
FDA has identified the following risks to health associated with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks:
FDA believes that the measures set forth in the special controls guideline entitled “Class II Special Controls Guideline: Nucleic Acid Amplification Assays for the Detection of
A
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final administrative order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; and the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 801 and 809 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Biologics, Laboratories, Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 866 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 371.
(a)
(b)
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the external upper esophageal sphincter (UES) compression device into class II (special controls). The special controls that will apply to the device are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the external UES compression device's classification. The Agency is classifying the device into class II (special controls) in order to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device.
This order is effective August 4, 2015. The classification was applicable on March 6, 2015.
Sunny Park, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 2432, Silver Spring, MD, 20993-0002, 301-796-7059,
In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)), devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976), generally referred to as postamendments devices, are classified automatically by statute into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. These devices remain in class III and require premarket approval, unless and until the device is classified or reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i), to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807) of the regulations.
Section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, as amended by section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), provides two procedures by which a person may request FDA to classify a device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1). Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act for a device that has not previously been classified and, within 30 days of receiving an order classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1), the person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and then a request for classification under the first procedure, the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence and requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
In response to a request to classify a device under either procedure provided by section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA will classify the device by written order within 120 days. This classification will be the initial classification of the device. On November 22, 2013, Somna Therapeutics, LLC, submitted a request for classification of the REZA BAND UES Assist Device under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. The manufacturer recommended that the device be classified into class II (Ref. 1).
In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1). FDA classifies devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the information submitted in the request, FDA determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA believes these special controls, in addition to general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on March 6, 2015, FDA issued an order to the requestor classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 874.5900.
Following the effective date of this final classification order, any firm submitting a premarket notification (510(k)) for an external UES compression device will need to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The device is assigned the generic name external UES compression device, and it is identified as a prescription device used to apply external pressure on the cricoid cartilage for the purpose of reducing the symptoms of laryngopharyngeal reflux disease.
FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device, as well as the mitigation measures required to mitigate these risks, in table 1.
FDA believes that the following special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness:
1. The patient contacting components must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
2. Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. The following performance characteristics must be demonstrated:
a. Mechanical integrity testing (
b. shelf life testing
3. The technical specifications must include pressure measurement accuracy to characterize device performance.
4. Clinical performance testing must document any adverse events observed during clinical use, and demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use.
5. Labeling must include the following:
a. Appropriate warnings and precautions.
b. A detailed summary of the clinical testing pertinent to use of the device including a detailed summary of the device-related complications or adverse events.
c. Detailed instructions on how to fit the device to the patient.
d. Instructions for reprocessing of any reusable components.
6. Patient labeling must be provided and must include:
a. Relevant warnings, precautions, and adverse effects/complications.
b. Information on how to correctly wear the device.
c. The potential risks and benefits associated with the use of the device.
d. Alternative treatments.
e. Reprocessing instructions.
The external UES compression device is a prescription device restricted to patient use only upon the authorization of a practitioner licensed by law to administer or use the device; see 21 CFR 801.109 (
Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k), if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. Therefore, this device type is not exempt from premarket notification requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of device must submit to FDA a premarket notification, prior to marketing the device, which contains information about the external UES compression device they intend to market.
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120, and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
The following reference has been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and is available electronically at
Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 874 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 371.
(a)
(b)
(1) The patient contacting components must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
(2) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. The following performance characteristics must be demonstrated:
(i) Mechanical integrity testing (
(ii) Shelf life testing.
(3) The technical specifications must include pressure measurement accuracy to characterize device performance.
(4) Clinical performance testing must document any adverse events observed during clinical use, and demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use.
(5) Labeling must include the following:
(i) Appropriate warnings and precautions,
(ii) A detailed summary of the clinical testing pertinent to use of the device including a detailed summary of the device-related complications or adverse events,
(iii) Detailed instructions on how to fit the device to the patient, and
(iv) Instructions for reprocessing of any reusable components.
(6) Patient labeling must be provided and must include:
(i) Relevant warnings, precautions, and adverse effects/complications,
(ii) Information on how to correctly wear the device,
(iii) The potential risks and benefits associated with the use of the device,
(iv) Alternative treatments, and
(v) Reprocessing instructions.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing temporary safety zones around Royal Dutch Shell's (Shell) contracted vessel FENNICA, which is participating in Shell's planned Arctic oil drilling and exploration operations, while it is located in the U.S. Territorial and Internal Waters of the Sector Columbia River Captain of the Port Zone. In addition, the Coast Guard is establishing a regulated navigation area to designate a Voluntary First Amendment Area for individuals that desire to exercise their First Amendment free speech rights with regards to Shell's operations. The safety zones and regulated navigation area created by this rule are necessary to ensure the mutual safety of all waterways users including the FENNICA and those individuals that desire to exercise their First Amendment rights.
This rule is effective without actual notice from August 4, 2015 until August 22, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from July 22, 2015 until August 4, 2015.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2015-0543 to view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander Laura Springer, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Portland; telephone (503) 240-2594, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because publishing an NPRM would be impracticable since the regulation is immediately necessary to help ensure the safety of all waterway users including the Shell contracted vessel FENNICA and those individuals that desire to exercise their First Amendment rights regarding Shell's activities and holding a notice and comment period at this time would delay regulatory implementation beyond the arrival of the FENNICA and expected start of First Amendment activities regarding Shell's operations, thereby increasing the safety risk to all waterways users.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
Shell is planning Arctic oil drilling and exploration operations for the summer of 2015. One of the Shell contracted vessels related to these operations, FENNICA, has been damaged and will be returning to Portland, Oregon for repairs. Over the last several months there has been significant waterborne First Amendment activity related to Shell's operations, particularly in the Puget Sound region, and the Coast Guard believes there will be similar activity in the greater Portland area related to FENNICA's presence there. The First Amendment activity previously observed includes unauthorized boardings of Shell contracted vessels and the formation of a “kayak flotilla” designed to protest as well as attempt to block Shell contracted vessels from departing for the Arctic.
Draft restrictions, vessel maneuvering characteristics, and geographic/environmental conditions may constrain the ability of large commercial vessels such as FENNICA to maneuver in close quarters with other vessels, particularly small craft piloted by recreational operators. Intentional close-in interaction of these vessels will create an increased risk of collision, grounding, or personal injury for all parties. Furthermore, while moored, at anchor, and in drydock the FENNICA will have ongoing operations occurring onboard, some of which could pose a safety risk to other maritime traffic. The myriad of potential safety risks to all parties and the port itself is best addressed by mandating a minimum zone of separation. For these reasons, the Coast Guard believes that a safety zone around the FENNICA is necessary to ensure the safety of all waterways users.
Additionally, the Coast Guard believes that given the nature of the First Amendment activity expected and the likely type of vessels used by individuals desiring to express their First Amendment rights, namely kayaks and other small vessels, a regulated navigation area designating a Voluntary First Amendment Area is necessary to ensure the safety of those vessels and persons. The regulated navigation area encompassing the Voluntary First Amendment Area would do so by establishing it as a “no wake” area, which is particularly important for small boats such as kayaks, to better enable persons and vessels to congregate and exercise their First Amendment rights safely and without interference from or interfering with other maritime traffic.
In this rule, the Coast Guard is establishing safety zones around the FENNICA, a Shell contracted vessel involved in the company's Arctic oil drilling and exploration operations, and a regulated navigation area for a Voluntary Free Speech Area that will allow individuals a meaningful opportunity to be heard in exercising their First Amendment rights while not compromising the safety of maritime traffic or the individuals exercising their First Amendment rights.
The safety zones are established in subsection (a) of this temporary regulation. Per subsection (a)(1)(i), while transiting, the safety zone around FENNICA will encompass all waters within a rectangle measuring 500 yards in front and 100 yards to the port, starboard, and astern of that vessel and any other vessel actively engaged in towing or escorting it. Per subsection (a)(1)(ii), while moored, anchored, or in drydock, the safety zone around FENNICA will encompass all waters within 100 yards of the vessel in all directions. Persons and/or vessels that desire to enter these safety zones must request permission to do so from the Captain of the Port, Columbia River by contacting the Coast Guard Sector Columbia River Command Center at 866-284-6958 or 503-861-6211, or the on-scene Law Enforcement patrol craft, if any, via VHF-FM CH 16.
The Coast Guard is also establishing a regulated navigation area to ensure the safety of individuals that desire to exercise their First Amendment rights related to Shell's activities in subsection (b) of this regulation. The Voluntary First Amendment Area is being established in an area where we believe individuals will be able to effectively communicate their message, without posing an undue risk to maritime safety, after analyzing maritime traffic patterns and other environmental factors. The regulated navigation area encompassing the Voluntary First Amendment Area will ensure the safety of small boats by establishing it as a “no wake” area for persons and/or vessels to congregate and exercise their First Amendment rights safely and without interference from or interfering with other maritime traffic. The “no wake” provisions will ensure all interactions between vessels within the area occur at a low rate of speed, thereby reducing risk of collision and personal injury. Likewise, the designation of a Voluntary First Amendment Area will help to ensure that a large congregation of vessels does not impede or endanger other commercial and recreational users who are not associated with Shell's arctic drilling and exploration operations or the associated First Amendment activity.
These provisions are particularly vital given the expected presence of a “kayak flotilla” described above. Persons or vessels desiring to exercise their First Amendment rights to free speech regarding Shell's Arctic drilling and exploration operations may enter the regulated navigation area at any time. All other persons or vessels are advised to avoid the regulated navigation area. When inside the regulated navigation area, all vessels must proceed at “no wake” speed and with due regard for all other persons and/or vessels inside the regulated navigation area.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule is not a significant regulatory action as the safety zones and regulated navigation area are limited in both size and duration and any person and/or vessel needing to transit through the safety zones or regulated navigation area may be allowed to do so in accordance with the regulatory provisions.
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
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of all individuals. This regulation establishes a regulated navigation area to create a Voluntary First Amendment Area so that persons and vessels can congregate and exercise their First Amendment free speech rights safely and without interference from or interfering with other maritime traffic. Of particular note, large vessels operating in restricted waters cannot maneuver freely, nor can they stop immediately. As such, any First Amendment activity taking place in immediate proximity to such vessels can quickly result in extremis. The Voluntary First Amendment Area has been located to allow individuals a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Individuals that desire to exercise their First Amendment rights are asked utilize the designated area to the extent possible, however, its use is voluntary. Individuals that desire to exercise their First Amendment rights outside the designated area are requested to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of temporary safety zones and a regulated navigation area to deal with an emergency situation that is one week or longer in duration. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(i) All waters within a rectangle measuring 500 yards in front and 100 yards to the port, starboard, and astern of the vessel FENNICA and any other vessel actively engaged in towing or escorting it while transiting within the U.S. Territorial or Internal Waters of the Sector Columbia River Captain of the Port Zone as defined in 33 CFR 3.65-15.
(ii) All waters within 100 yards of the vessel FENNICA while moored, anchored, or in drydock within the U.S. Territorial or Internal Waters of the Sector Columbia River Captain of the Port Zone as defined in 33 CFR 3.65-15.
(2)
(b)
(2)
(c)
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Interim final rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending its medical regulation that governs Vet Center services. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (the 2013 Act) requires Vet Centers to provide readjustment counseling services to broader groups of veterans, members of the Armed Forces, including a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces, and family members of such veterans and members. This interim final rule amends regulatory criteria to conform to the 2013 Act, to include new and revised definitions.
Written comments may be submitted through
Michael Fisher, Readjustment Counseling Service (10RCS), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420; (202) 461-6525. (This is not a toll-free number.)
On September 17, 2013, VA promulgated 38 CFR 17.2000, which implemented VA's authority to provide readjustment counseling services through Vet Centers based on 38 U.S.C. 1712A, as amended by the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010 (the 2010 Act), Public Law 111-163, sec. 304, 401(a) and (b). The 2010 Act amended section 1712A to require VA to provide readjustment counseling services to certain servicemembers and veterans who served on active duty in specific theaters of combat operations, or in certain areas in which hostilities occurred. The 2010 Act also mandated that VA provide readjustment counseling to veterans and servicemembers of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, and the family members of such veterans and servicemembers after the veterans and servicemembers return from deployment. Although not expressly stated in the 2010 Act, VA also considered veterans, servicemembers, and the family members of such veterans and servicemembers who participated in Operation New Dawn as eligible for readjustment counseling. In promulgating § 17.2000, VA implemented the mandates in the 2010 Act, as well as interpreted section 1712A to permit VA to provide readjustment counseling to family members of all veterans that were themselves eligible for readjustment counseling. See 77 FR 14707 and 78 FR 57067. The term “servicemembers” as used in § 17.2000 means a member of the Armed Forces, including a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces. We note, however, that the terms servicemembers and member of the Armed Forces, including a member
On January 2, 2013, Congress enacted the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Public Law 112-239 (Jan. 2, 2013) (the 2013 Act), section 727 of the 2013 Act amended section 1712A to broaden the groups of individuals who are eligible to receive readjustment counseling from VA. Section 17.2000 is revised to conform to these amendments. Section 1712A(a)(1)(C)(i) requires VA to provide readjustment counseling to veterans and members of the Armed Forces, including a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces, who served on active duty in a theater of combat operations or an area at a time during which hostilities occurred in that area, without restricting eligibility to any specific theater during combat operations, or any specific area of hostilities. Paragraph (a) of § 17.2000 is revised to restate this statutory eligibility in new § 17.2000(a)(1)(i). We note that § 17.2000(a)(1)(i), as revised by this rulemaking, encompasses the categories of eligible veterans and members of the Armed Forces, including a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces, that are listed in current § 17.2000(a)(1) through (a)(4). The revisions made by this rulemaking merely restate and reorganize the existing language to clarify that the listed individuals have been and will continue to be eligible for readjustment counseling. Section 1712A(a)(1)(C)(ii) requires that VA provide readjustment counseling to a veteran or member of the Armed Forces, including a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces, who provided direct emergency medical or mental health care, or mortuary services to the casualties of combat operations or hostilities, but who at the time was located outside the theater of combat operations or area of hostilities. Paragraph (a) of § 17.2000 is revised to restate this statutory eligibility in new § 17.2000(a)(1)(ii). Section 1712A(a)(C)(1)(iii) states that VA shall provide readjustment counseling to a veteran or member of the Armed Forces, including a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces, who engaged in combat with an enemy of the United States or against an opposing military force in a theater of combat operations or an area at a time during which hostilities occurred in that area by remotely controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle, notwithstanding whether the physical location of such veteran or member during such combat was within such theater of combat operations or area. Paragraph (a) of § 17.2000 is revised to restate this statutory eligibility in new § 17.2000(a)(1)(iii).
VA consulted with the Department of Defense (DoD) to clarify the individuals who are considered as remotely controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle. DoD indicated that individuals who remotely control unmanned aerial vehicles includes, but is not limited to, individuals who pilot the unmanned aerial vehicle as well as individuals who are crew members of the unmanned aerial vehicle and participate in combat related missions. The crew members could include, but are not limited to, intelligence analysts or weapons specialists who control the cameras, engage the weapon systems, as well as those individuals who are directly responsible for the mission of the unmanned aerial vehicle. We defer to DoD's expertise in classifying the individuals who remotely control an unmanned aerial vehicle because they are the ultimate subject matter experts in this field. We are not restricting who VA considers to control an unmanned aerial vehicle, we are merely clarifying who is eligible for readjustment counseling services. This clarifying language is included in paragraph (a)(1)(iii).
Section 1712A(1)(C)(iv) requires that VA provide readjustment counseling to any individual who received counseling under this section before the date of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. We are revising § 17.2000(a) to include these individuals as eligible to receive readjustment counseling under new § 17.2000(a)(2). New paragraph (a)(2) is added to clearly state that VA will continue to provide readjustment counseling to individuals who had been receiving such counseling prior to the 2013 Act.
Section 1712A(a)(1)(C)(v)(I) requires that readjustment counseling shall be provided to the family members of a member of the Armed Forces, including a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces, who is serving on active duty in a theater of combat operations or in an area at a time during which hostilities are occurring in that area. Readjustment counseling shall also be provided to family members of veterans and members of the Armed Forces, including a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces, who are eligible to receive readjustment counseling under section 1712A, namely those previously listed in this rulemaking. See 38 U.S.C. 1712A(a)(1)(C)(v)(II). Paragraph (a) of § 17.2000 is revised to restate this statutory eligibility in new § 17.2000(a)(3), which uses the broader language in section 1712A (a)(1)(C)(v)(II), because it encompasses the eligibility in (a)(1)(C)(v)(I). Current § 17.2000(a)(5) already provides readjustment counseling broadly to all family members, and new § 17.2000(a)(3) is merely a renumbering of current § 17.2000(a)(5).
Section 1712A provides a definition of the term “family member” that is substantively identical to the definition of “family member” in current § 17.2000(a)(5), and this definition will be restated in new § 17.2000(a)(3).
Current paragraph (d) of § 17.2000 contains a list of the readjustment counseling services provided by the Vet Centers, defines a “psychosocial assessment,” and generally states that readjustment counseling may be provided to eligible veterans and servicemembers, and to their family members when such services would aid in the readjustment of a veteran or servicemember. Section 1712A(a)(1)(B) of 38 U.S.C. uses the term “comprehensive individual assessment” with a definition identical to “psychosocial assessment” as it is currently used in § 17.2000. We will continue to use the term “psychosocial assessment” because it is the term most widely used in VA. We do not interpret the term “psychosocial assessment” to have a different meaning than the statutory term “comprehensive individual assessment.” We are adding paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(3) to § 17.2000(d) to better explain when readjustment counseling is provided to veterans, members of the Armed Forces, including a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces, and their family members, consistent with subsections (a)(1)(B)(i) and (a)(1)(B)(ii) of section 1712A. New § 17.2000(d)(1) states that readjustment counseling is provided for the readjustment of veterans and members of the Armed Forces, including a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces, to civilian life or readjustment to continued military service following participation in or in support of operations in a combat theater or area of hostility. New § 17.2000(d)(2) states that readjustment counseling is provided for the readjustment of a family member of a member of the Armed Forces,
Section 1712A(h)(1) defines the term “Vet Center.” We add a substantively identical definition of “Vet Center” as the last sentence in § 17.2000(e), to mean “a facility that is operated by VA for the provision of services under this section and that is situated apart from a VA general health care facility.” Section 17.2000(e) deals with the confidentiality of Vet Center records and this definition will reassure the individuals who receive readjustment counseling that VA maintains the confidentiality of records associated with readjustment counseling.
The authority citation at the end of § 17.2000 is currently 38 U.S.C. 501, 1712A, 1782, and 1783; Pub. L. 111-163, sec. 304, 401, and 402. Because the 2013 Act supersedes the 2010 Act, we amend the authority citation at the end of § 17.2000 to simply state 38 U.S.C. 501, 1712A, 1782, and 1783.
In accordance with U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3), the Secretary of Veterans Affairs concluded that there was good cause to publish this rule without prior opportunity for public comment and to publish this rule with an immediate effective date. This interim final rule incorporates a specific program requirement mandated by Congress in Public Law 112-239. The Secretary finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay this rule for the purpose of soliciting advance public comment or to have a delayed effective date. This rule will increase the pool of individuals who are eligible to receive mental health care at Vet Centers. This rule will also increase access to much needed mental health care services in Vet Centers. For the above reason, the Secretary issues this rule as an interim final rule. VA will consider and address comments that are received within 60 days of the date this interim final rule is published in the
Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as revised by this interim final rulemaking, represents VA's implementation of its legal authority on this subject. Other than future amendments to this regulation or governing statutes, no contrary guidance or procedures are authorized. All existing or subsequent VA guidance must be read to conform with this rulemaking if possible or, if not possible, such guidance is superseded by this rulemaking.
Although this action contains provisions constituting collections of information, at 38 CFR 17.2000, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), no new or proposed revised collections of information are associated with this final rule. The information collection requirements for § 17.2000 are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and have been assigned OMB control number 2900-0787.
The Secretary hereby certifies that this interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This interim final rule directly affects only individuals and will not directly affect small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action” requiring review by OMB, unless OMB waives such review, as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are as follows: 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.018, Sharing Specialized Medical Resources; 64.019, Veterans Rehabilitation Alcohol and Drug Dependence; and 64.024, VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Nabors, II, Chief of Staff, approved this document on July 29, 2015, for publication.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, Drug abuse, Health care, Health facilities, Homeless, Mental health programs, Veterans.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs amends 38 CFR part 17 as follows:
38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in specific sections.
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(1) Is a veteran or member of the Armed Forces, including a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces, who:
(i) Served on active duty in a theater of combat operations or an area of hostilities (
(ii) Provided direct emergency medical or mental health care, or mortuary services, to the causalities of combat operations or hostilities, but who at the time was located outside the theater of combat operations or area of hostilities; or
(iii) Engaged in combat with an enemy of the United States or against an opposing military force in a theater of combat operations or an area at a time during which hostilities occurred in that area by remotely controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle operations, notwithstanding whether the physical location of such veteran or member during such combat was within such theater of combat operations or area. Individuals who remotely control unmanned aerial vehicles includes, but is not limited to, individuals who pilot the unmanned aerial vehicle as well as individuals who are crew members of the unmanned aerial vehicle and participate in combat related missions. The crew members include, but are not limited to, intelligence analysts or weapons specialists who control the cameras, engage the weapon systems, as well as those individuals who are directly responsible for the mission of the unmanned aerial vehicle.
(2) Received counseling under this section before January 2, 2013.
(3) Is a family member of a veteran or member of the Armed Forces, including a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces, who is eligible for readjustment counseling under paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section. For purposes of this section, family member includes, but is not limited to, the spouse, parent, child, step-family member, extended family member, and any individual who lives with the veteran or member of the Armed Forces, including a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces, but is not a member of the veteran's or member's family.
(d)
(1) Veterans and members of the Armed Forces, including a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces, for the purpose of readjusting to civilian life or readjustment to continued military service following participation in or in support of operations in a combat theater or area of hostility.
(2) A family member of a member of the Armed Forces, including a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces, for the purpose of coping with such member's deployment.
(3) A family member of a veteran or member of the Armed Forces, including a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces, to aid in a veteran's or member's readjustment to civilian or continued military service following participation in or in support of operations in a combat theater or area of hostility, only as it relates to the veteran's or member's military experience.
(e)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. This revision consists of amendments to Virginia's regulation for consumer and commercial products in order to apply provisions pertaining to portable fuel containers, consumer and commercial products, architectural and industrial maintenance coatings, adhesives, adhesive primers, sealants, and sealant primers to the Richmond volatile organic compound (VOC) Emissions Control Area. The revision also consists of amendments to Virginia's regulation for existing stationary sources to apply provisions pertaining to mobile equipment repair and refinishing operations in the Richmond VOC Emissions Control Area. EPA is approving these revisions to the Virginia SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This final rule is effective on September 3, 2015.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0816. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Leslie Jones Doherty, (215) 814-3409 or by email at
On March 16, 2015 (80 FR 13510), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of revisions to Virginia's consumer and commercial products and mobile equipment repair and refinishing operations regulations. The formal SIP revision was submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia on April 10, 2014.
The SIP revision consists of amendments to 9VAC5 Chapter 45—Consumer and Commercial Products in order to apply provisions pertaining to portable fuel containers, consumer and commercial products, architectural and industrial maintenance coatings, adhesives, adhesive primers, sealants, and sealant primers to the Richmond VOC Emissions Control Area. This revision also amends Article 48 of 9VAC5 Chapter 40—Existing Stationary Sources to apply provisions pertaining to mobile equipment repair and refinishing operations in the Richmond VOC Emissions Control Area. Also, the SIP revision includes revised compliance dates for Chapters 40 and 45 and retains in Chapter 45 a temporary exemption for the manufacture and distribution of single-ply roof membrane adhesives and sealants. Other specific requirements and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR.
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) are required by law.
On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts. . . .” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.”
Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”
Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
EPA is approving the amendments to Virginia's regulations for consumer and commercial products and mobile equipment repair and refinishing operations as a revision to the Virginia SIP.
In this rulemaking action, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) Regulations described in amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 5, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action pertaining to Virginia's control of VOC emissions from commercial and consumer products and mobile equipment repair and refinishing operations may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; correction.
NMFS published a final rule on July 17, 2015, to, in part, implement provisions that would expand a portion of the northern boundary of the Cape Lookout Lophelia Banks Deepwater Coral Habitat Area of Particular Concern (Cape Lookout CHAPC). The final rule included coordinates for only the expansion of the Cape Lookout CHAPC instead of the coordinates for the existing CHAPC plus the expanded area. This notification corrects the coordinates for the Cape Lookout CHAPC to encompass the existing CHAPC plus the expanded area.
The correction is effective on August 17, 2015.
Karla Gore, 727-824-5305; email:
On July 17, 2015, NMFS published a final rule in the
After the final rule published, NMFS noticed that the coordinates that describe the CHAPC for “Cape Lookout Lophelia Banks” in § 622.224(c)(1)(i) set forth only the expanded CHAPC area of 10 square miles (26 square km) and not the total area that encompasses both the existing CHAPC and the expanded area, which totals 326 square miles (844 square km). Amendment 8 and the implementing proposed and final rules are clear that the CHAPC for Cape Lookout Lophelia Banks would consist of the existing area and the expanded area. NMFS publishes this notification to correct that mistake.
In the
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Models Duo Discus and Duo Discus T powered sailplanes. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as excessive load on the air brake system. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 18, 2015.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH, Krebenstrasse 25, 73230 Kirchheim/Teck, Germany; telephone: +49 7021 7298-0; fax: +49 7021 7298-199; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No. 2015-0139R1, dated July 15, 2015 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Operational experience shows that application of an excessive load on the air brake system may induce damage to the drive funnels in the fuselage and to the air brake bellcrank at the root rips of the wing.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to an uncontrolled actuation of the air brakes (symmetric and asymmetric), possibly resulting in reduced control of the (powered) sailplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH issued Technical Note (TN) 380-2, 396-17, 868-22 and 890-14 (published as a single document) to provide inspection instructions.
Consequently EASA issued AD 2015-0139 to require to repetitive inspections of the air brake bellcrank, the air brake drive funnels and the airbrake control system, and replacement of damaged parts.
Since that AD was issued, it was found that the drawing number of the reinforced air brake drive funnel was incorrectly stated in the original issue of the Schempp-Hirth TN. The wrongly referred drawing S14FB703 refers to an existing part, different from air brake drive funnel and cannot be installed as a replacement part for air brake drive funnel. Consequently, Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH issued Revision 1 of TN 380-2, 396-17, 868-22 and 890-14, hearafter referenced to as `the revised TN' in this AD.
For the reasons described above, this AD is revised to require using the revised TN.
Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH has issued Technical Note No. 380-2/396-17/868-22/890-14, Revision 1, issued July 13, 2015 (published as a single document), and Working instruction for Technical Note No. 380-2/396-17/868-22/890-14, Ausgabe (English translation: Issue) 1, Datum (English translation: Dated) May 11, 2015. The service information describes
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 31 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic inspection requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $5,270, or $170 per product.
We estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the airbrake bell crank replacement requirement of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $500 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $26,040, or $840 per product.
We estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the airbrake drive funnel replacement requirement of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $500 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $26,040, or $840 per product
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions to make any necessary adjustments to the airbrake control system would take about 2 work-hours for a cost of $170 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by September 18, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Model Duo Discus powered sailplane, serial numbers 1 through 639, and Model Duo Discus T powered sailplanes, serial numbers 1 through 110 and 112 through 247, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as excessive load on the air brake system. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontrolled actuation of the air brakes (symmetric or asymmetric), which could result in reduced control.
Unless already done, do the actions in paragraph (f)(1) through (f)(5) of this AD.
(1) Within 40 days after the effective date of this AD and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours time-in-service until the terminating replacement action required in paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of this AD (as applicable) is done, inspect the airbrake bell crank, the airbrake drive funnels, and the airbrake control system.
(i) Inspect the airbrake bell crank and the airbrake drive funnels for cracks and damage following Action 1 in Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical Note No. 380-2/396-17/868-22/890-14, Revision 1, issued July 13, 2015 (published as a single document).
(ii) Inspect the airbrake control system for proper clearance following Paragraph 2.d. of Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Working instruction for Technical Note No. 380-2/396-17/868-22/890-14, Ausgabe (English translation: issue) 1, Datum (English translation: dated) May 11, 2015.
(2) If cracks or damage is found on the airbrake bell cranks or the airbrake drive funnels during any inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, replace each cracked or damaged part
(i) For replacement of the airbrake bell cranks, follow Picture 2: Reinforced version of airbrake bell crank according to HS 11-50.016, Revision a or later, in Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Working instruction for Technical Note No. 380-2/396-17/868-22/890-14, Ausgabe (English translation: issue) 1, Datum (English translation: dated) May 11, 2015.
(ii) For replacement of the airbrake drive funnels, follow Picture 5: Airbrake drive funnel in fuselage “Reinforcement of airbrake drive funnel according to drawing S14RB703, Revision a, in Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Working instruction for Technical Note No. 380-2/396-17/868-22/890-14, Ausgabe (English translation: issue) 1, Datum (English translation: dated) May 11, 2015.
(3) If no cracks or damage were found on the airbrake bell cranks or the airbrake drive funnels during any inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, replace each the airbrake bell cranks and airbrake drive funnels with a reinforced part. These replacements terminate the repetitive inspections required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
(i) For replacement of the airbrake bell cranks, follow Picture 2: Reinforced version of airbrake bell crank according to HS 11-50.016, Revision a or later, in Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Working instruction for Technical Note No. 380-2/396-17/868-22/890-14, Ausgabe (English translation: issue) 1, Datum (English translation: dated) May 11, 2015.
(ii) For replacement of the airbrake drive funnels, follow Picture 5: Airbrake drive funnel in fuselage, “Reinforcement of airbrake drive funnel according to drawing S14RB703, Revision a,” in Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Working instruction for Technical Note No. 380-2/396-17/868-22/890-14, Ausgabe (English translation: issue) 1, Datum (English translation: dated) May 11, 2015.
(4) If the airbrake control system is found to not have proper clearance during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, make all necessary corrective adjustments following Paragraph 2.d. of Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Working instruction for Technical Note No. 380-2/396-17/868-22/890-14, Ausgabe (English translation: issue) 1, Datum (English translation: dated) May 11, 2015.
(5) As of the effective date of this AD, only install an airbrake bell crank or an airbrake drive funnel that corresponds to Picture 2: Reinforced version of airbrake bell crank according to HS 11-50.016, Revision a or later, and Picture 5: Airbrake drive funnel in fuselage, “Reinforcement of airbrake drive funnel according to drawing S14RB703, Revision a,” in Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Working instruction for Technical Note No. 380-2/396-17/868-22/890-14, Ausgabe (English translation: issue) 1, Datum (English translation: dated) May 11, 2015, as applicable.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2015-0139R1, dated July 15, 2015, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
Department of the Treasury.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule sets out the Department of the Treasury's (Treasury) rules for implementing the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (the Act). The Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. The Act, which applies to persons of all ages, permits the use of certain age distinctions and factors other than age that meet the Act's requirements.
The Act and the related general, government-wide regulations require all agencies that extend federal financial assistance to issue agency-specific regulations implementing the Act. Treasury recipients have been subject to the Act and the government-wide regulations since their effective date in 1979. Accordingly, today's proposed rule does not substantially change Treasury recipients' existing duty to refrain from discrimination on the basis of age. This proposal fulfills the obligation on Treasury to issue agency-specific rules under the Act, clarifies the responsibilities of Treasury recipients under the Act, and describes the Treasury investigation, conciliation, and enforcement procedures to ensure compliance.
Written comments must be received on or before October 5, 2015.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice of proposed rulemaking according to the instructions below. All submissions must refer to the document title. The Department encourages the early submission of comments.
Note: To receive consideration, comments must be submitted through one of the methods specified above.
Mariam G. Harvey, Director, Office of Civil Rights and Diversity, Department of the Treasury, (202) 622-0316 (voice).
The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, 42 U.S.C. 6101-6107 (“the Act”), which Congress enacted as part of amendments to the Older Americans Act (Pub. L. 94-135, 89 Stat. 713, 728), prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-259, 102 Stat. 28, 31 (1988)) amended the Act and other civil rights statutes to define “program or activity” to mean all of the operations of specified entities, any part of which is extended federal financial assistance.
The Act applies to discrimination at all age levels. The Act also contains specific exceptions that permit the use of certain age distinctions and factors other than age that meet the Act's requirements.
The Act required the former Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) to issue general, government-wide regulations, setting standards to be followed by all federal agencies implementing the Act. These government-wide regulations, which were issued on June 12, 1979 (44 FR 33768), and became effective on July 1, 1979, require each federal agency providing financial assistance to any program or activity to publish proposed regulations implementing the Act, and to submit final agency regulations to HEW (now the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)), before publication in the
The Act became effective on the effective date of HEW's final government-wide regulations (
This proposed rule is designed to fulfill the statutory and regulatory obligations of Treasury to issue a regulation implementing the Act that conforms to the government-wide regulations at 45 CFR part 90. The proposed rule carries out the Act's prohibition of discrimination based on age in programs and activities receiving financial assistance from Treasury and provides appropriate investigative, conciliation, and enforcement procedures. OCRD, part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Management, will conduct Treasury enforcement. OCRD enforces all civil rights laws applicable to entities receiving financial assistance from Treasury.
The proposed rule is not intended to alter the legal standards found in the Act or the government-wide regulations, which are applicable to recipients of federal financial assistance from Treasury under other statutes. The proposed rule closely follows the wording and format of rules issued by other federal agencies to implement the Act. In particular, Treasury modeled much of its proposal on the agency-specific regulations issued by HHS, the lead federal agency coordinating implementation of the Act (45 CFR part 91; 47 FR 57850, Dec. 28, 1982); and the Department of Education (ED) (34 CFR part 110; 58 FR 40194, July 27, 1993). The government-wide, HHS, and ED rules were subjected to extensive public scrutiny, and the public comments were considered in finalizing those rules. Readers may review the HHS and ED
The four sections in Subpart A provide the proposed rule's purpose, application, and definitions, and are consistent with the government-wide regulations.
The definitions in § 23.4 are substantively identical to definitions in the government-wide regulations (45 CFR 90.4), HHS agency-specific regulations (45 CFR 91.4), and ED regulations (34 CFR 110.3).
Subpart B is virtually identical to the corresponding sections of the government-wide regulations at 45 CFR part 90. Some of the provisions have been reordered for greater clarity and coherence.
Section 23.11 follows the government-wide regulations in laying out the general and specific rules prohibiting age discrimination in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance from Treasury.
Like the government-wide rule, the proposal states that the list of prohibited forms of age discrimination in § 23.11(b) is not exhaustive and, consequently, does not imply that other forms of age discrimination are permitted.
Sections 23.12 and 23.13 follow the government-wide regulations (see 45 CFR 90.13 and 90.14), in defining the terms “normal operation” and “statutory objective” and delineating the “normal operation” and “statutory objective” exceptions to the prohibitions against age discrimination that are specified in the Act, 42 U.S.C. 6103.
Section 23.13 sets out the four-prong test, provided in the government-wide regulations (see 45 CFR 90.14), for determining when an action reasonably takes into account “age as a factor necessary to the normal operation or the achievement of any statutory objective of a program or activity” and thus does not violate the Act.
In the proposed rule, provisions concerning affirmative action and special benefits to children and elderly are in subpart B at §§ 23.16 and 23.17; in the government-wide regulations, the analogous provisions are part of subpart D (Investigation, Conciliation, and Enforcement Procedures) at 45 CFR 90.49. The HHS agency-specific regulations also moved these provisions to Subpart B (see 45 CFR 91.16 and 91.17), and Treasury believes this reordering aids comprehension.
Section 23.18 of the proposed rule provides that age distinctions in Treasury regulations are entitled to a presumption of validity. For example, the provision in Internal Revenue Service Publication 1101, which limits participation in the Tax Counseling for the Elderly Program to individuals who are 60 years of age or older, is presumed valid. This presumption of validity is
Subpart C is consistent with the government-wide regulations at 45 CFR part 90. As described below, language differences between this Subpart of the proposed rule and the government-wide regulations are meant to clarify the duties of Treasury recipients.
The proposed rule fosters awareness of the Act's provisions, by requiring that recipients provide notice concerning obligations and rights under the Act to other recipients and to beneficiaries (§ 23.32) and that recipients complete a written assurance of compliance (§ 23.33). The notice requirements in § 23.32 are modeled after the HHS provision in 45 CFR 91.32 and the ED provisions in 34 CFR 110.21 and 110.25(b). The § 23.33 requirement for assurances of compliance is similar to the HHS rule at 45 CFR 91.33(a) and the ED rule at 34 CFR 110.23(a).
Section 23.33 of this proposed rule provides that OCRD may require a recipient employing the equivalent of 15 or more employees to complete a written self-evaluation as part of a compliance review or complaint investigation. The government-wide regulations at 45 CFR 90.43 contain the requirement that all recipients with the equivalent of 15 or more full-time employees must complete a written self-evaluation of their compliance under the Act. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) subsequently disapproved of this across-the-board self-evaluation requirement as excessively burdensome and inconsistent with the Federal Reports Act of 1942, the precursor of the Paperwork Reduction Act, as amended (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). Correspondingly, HHS and other federal agencies have rejected imposing self-evaluation requirements on all recipients and instead state in their agency-specific regulations that such evaluations will only be required as part of a compliance review or complaint investigation.
Section 23.34 lists recordkeeping, reporting, and access to records requirements under the Act. The government-wide regulations already require recipients to maintain records, provide information, and afford access to their records to agencies for the purposes of determining whether the recipients are complying with the Act.
In accordance with the government-wide regulations, subpart D describes procedures for compliance reviews and federal-level complaint processing, and outlines the role of mediation in resolving complaints. This subpart closely follows the HHS and ED age regulations, adopting minor stylistic and organizational changes that Treasury believes will improve clarity.
Section 23.44 incorporates the HHS agency-specific regulation published at 45 CFR 91.44(a)(4). This section provides that settlements during the agency investigation process will not affect the operation of any other enforcement effort by the agency, such as compliance reviews and investigations of other complaints, including those against the same recipient.
Section 2347 provides that the procedural regulations applicable to hearings, decisions, and post-determination proceedings under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, when published, will apply to OCRD's enforcement of the Act and this part.
Section 23.49 of the proposed rule describes procedures for disbursal of funds to an alternate recipient if funds are withheld from the original recipient because of violations of these rules. Section 23.49 is not intended to replace established grant-awarding procedures. The requirements listed in § 23.49(b) are in addition to any requirements contained in other applicable Federal laws or regulations.
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. Therefore, no regulatory impact analysis has been prepared.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Aged, Discrimination against aged.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the Treasury proposes to add part 23 to subtitle A of title 31 of the CFR to read as follows:
Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6101
The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, is designed to prohibit discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. The Act also permits federally assisted programs and activities, and recipients of federal funds, to continue to use certain age distinctions and factors other than age that meet the requirements of the Act and these regulations.
The purpose of these regulations is to set out Treasury's policies and procedures under the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and the general age discrimination regulations at 45 CFR part 90. The Act and the general regulations prohibit discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. The Act and the general regulations permit federally assisted programs and activities, and recipients of federal funds, to continue to use age distinctions and factors other than age that meet the requirements of the Act and its implementing regulations.
(a) These regulations apply any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance from Treasury.
(b) These regulations do not apply to:
(1) An age distinction contained in that part of a federal, state, or local statute or ordinance adopted by an elected, general purpose legislative body that:
(i) Provides any benefits or assistance to persons based on age; or
(ii) Establishes criteria for participation in age-related terms; or
(iii) Describes intended beneficiaries to target groups in age-related terms; or
(2) Any employment practice of any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or any labor-management joint apprenticeship training program, except for any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance for public service employment under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA), 29 U.S.C. 801
As used in these regulations, the term:
(1) Funds; or
(2) Services of federal personnel; or
(3) Real and personal property or any interest in or use or property, including:
(i) Transfers or leases of property for less than fair market value or for reduced consideration; and
(ii) Proceeds from a subsequent transfer or lease of property if the federal share of its fair market value is not returned to the federal government.
(1)(i) A department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a state or of a local government; or
(ii) The entity of such state or local government that distributes such assistance and each such department or agency (and each other state or local government entity) to which the assistance is extended, in the case of assistance to a state or local government;
(2)(i) A college, university, or other postsecondary institution, or a public system of higher education; or
(ii) A local educational agency (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801), system of vocational education, or other school system;
(3)(i) An entire corporation, partnership, or other private organization, or an entire sole proprietorship—
(A) If assistance is extended to such corporation, partnership, private organization, or sole proprietorship as a whole; or
(B) That is principally engaged in the business of providing education, health care, housing, social services, or parks and recreation; or
(ii) The entire plant or other comparable, geographically separate facility to which federal financial assistance is extended, in the case of any other corporation, partnership, private organization, or sole proprietorship; or
(4) Any other entity that is established by two or more of the entities described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this definition.
The rules stated in this section are limited by the exceptions contained in §§ 23.13 and 23.14.
(a)
(b)
(1) Excluding individuals from, denying them the benefits of, or subjecting them to discrimination under, a program or activity receiving federal financial assistance; or
(2) Denying or limiting individuals in their opportunity to participate in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
(c) The specific forms of age discrimination listed in paragraph (b) of this section do not necessarily constitute a complete list.
For purposes of §§ 23.13 and 23.14, the terms “normal operation” and “statutory objective” shall have the following meaning:
(a)
(b)
A recipient is permitted to take an action, otherwise prohibited by § 23.11, if the action reasonably takes into account age as a factor necessary to the normal operation or the achievement of any statutory objective of a program or activity. An action reasonably takes into account age as a factor necessary to the normal operation or the achievement of any statutory objective of a program or activity, if:
(a) Age is used as a measure or approximation of one or more other characteristics; and
(b) The other characteristic(s) must be measured or approximated for the normal operation of the program or activity to continue, or to achieve any statutory objective of the program or activity; and
(c) The other characteristic(s) can be reasonably measured or approximated by the use of age; and
(d) The other characteristic(s) are impractical to measure directly on an individual basis.
A recipient is permitted to take an action otherwise prohibited by § 23.11 that is based on a factor other than age, even though that action may have a disproportionate effect on persons of different ages. An action may be based on a factor other than age only if the factor bears a direct and substantial relationship to the normal operation of the program or activity or to the achievement of a statutory objective.
The burden of proving that an age distinction or other action falls within the exceptions outlined in §§ 23.13 and 23.14 is on the recipient of federal financial assistance.
Even in the absence of a finding of discrimination, a recipient may take affirmative action to overcome the effects of conditions that resulted in limited participation in the recipient's program or activity on the basis of age.
If a recipient's operation of a program or activity provides special benefits to the elderly or to children, such use of age distinctions shall be presumed to be necessary to the normal operation of the program or activity, notwithstanding the provisions of § 23.13.
Any age distinctions contained in a rule or regulation issued by Treasury shall be presumed to be necessary to the achievement of a statutory objective of the program or activity to which the rule or regulation applies, notwithstanding the provisions of § 23.13.
Each Treasury recipient has primary responsibility to ensure that its programs and activities are in compliance with the Act and these regulations, and shall take steps to eliminate violations of the Act. A recipient also has responsibility to maintain records, provide information, and afford Treasury access to its records to the extent Treasury finds necessary to determine whether the recipient is in compliance with the Act and these regulations.
(a) Where a recipient passes on federal financial assistance from Treasury to subrecipients, the recipient shall provide the subrecipients written notice of their obligations under the Act and these regulations.
(b) Each recipient shall make necessary information about the Act and these regulations available to its program beneficiaries to inform them about the protections against discrimination provided by the Act and these regulations.
(a) Each recipient of federal financial assistance from Treasury shall sign a written assurance as specified by Treasury that it will comply with the Act and these regulations.
(b)
(2) Whenever an assessment indicates a violation of the Act or the Treasury regulations, the recipient shall take corrective action.
Each recipient shall:
(a) Keep records in a form and containing information that Treasury determines may be necessary to ascertain whether the recipient is complying with the Act and these regulations.
(b) Provide to Treasury, upon request, information and reports that Treasury determines are necessary to ascertain whether the recipient is complying with the Act and these regulations.
(c) Permit reasonable access by Treasury to the books, records, accounts, and other recipient facilities and sources of information to the extent Treasury determines is necessary to ascertain whether the recipient is complying with the Act and these regulations.
(a) Treasury may conduct compliance reviews and pre-award reviews or use other similar procedures that will permit it to investigate and correct violations of the Act and these regulations. Treasury may conduct these reviews even in the absence of a complaint against a recipient. The reviews may be as comprehensive as necessary to determine whether a violation of the Act or these regulations has occurred.
(b) If a compliance review or pre-award review indicates a violation of the Act or these regulations, Treasury will attempt to achieve voluntary compliance. If voluntary compliance cannot be achieved, Treasury will arrange for enforcement as described in § 23.46.
(a) Any person, individually or as a member of a class or on behalf of others, may file a complaint with Treasury, alleging discrimination prohibited by the Act or these regulations based on an action occurring on or after July 1, 1979. A complainant shall file a complaint within 180 days from the date the complainant first had knowledge of the alleged act of discrimination. However, for good cause shown, Treasury may extend this time limit.
(b) Treasury will consider the date a complaint is filed to be the date upon which the complaint is sufficient to be processed.
(c) Treasury will attempt to facilitate the filing of complaints wherever possible, including taking the following measures:
(1) Accepting as a sufficient complaint any written statement that identifies the parties involved and the date the complainant first had knowledge of the alleged violation, describes generally the action or practice complained of, and is signed by the complainant.
(2) Freely permitting a complainant to add information to the complaint to meet the requirements of a sufficient complaint.
(3) Notifying the complainant and the recipient of their rights and obligations under the complaint procedure, including the right to have a representative at all stages of the complaint resolution process.
(4) Notifying the complainant and the recipient (or their representatives) of their right to contact Treasury for information and assistance regarding the complaint resolution process.
(d) Treasury will notify the complainant when the complaint falls outside the jurisdiction of these regulations, and will state the reason(s) why it is outside the jurisdiction of these regulations.
(a) Treasury will promptly refer to a mediation agency designated by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) all sufficient complaints that:
(1) Fall within the jurisdiction of the Act and these regulations, unless the age distinction complained of is clearly within an exception; and,
(2) Contain all information necessary for further processing.
(b) Both the complainant and the recipient shall participate in the mediation process to the extent necessary to reach an agreement or make an informed judgment that an agreement is not possible.
(c) If the complainant and the recipient reach an agreement, the mediator shall prepare a written statement of the agreement and have the complainant and the recipient sign it. The mediator shall send a copy of the agreement to Treasury. Treasury will take no further action on the complaint unless the complainant or the recipient fails to comply with the agreement.
(d) The mediator shall protect the confidentially of all information obtained in the course of the mediation process. No mediator shall testify in any adjudicative proceeding, produce any document, or otherwise disclose any information obtained in the course of the mediation process without prior approval of the head of the mediation agency.
(e)(1) The mediation will proceed for a maximum of 60 days after a complaint is filed with Treasury. Mediation ends if:
(i) 60 days elapse from the time the complaint is filed; or
(ii) Prior to the end of that 60-day period, an agreement is reached; or
(iii) Prior to the end of that 60-day period, the mediator determines that an agreement cannot be reached.
(2) This 60-day period may be extended by the mediator, with the concurrence of Treasury, for not more than 30 days if the mediator determines that agreement likely will be reached during such extended period.
(f) The mediator shall notify Treasury when mediation is not successful and Treasury will continue processing the complaint.
(a)
(2) As part of the initial investigation, Treasury will use informal fact finding methods, including joint or separate discussions with the complainant and recipient, to establish the facts and, if possible, settle the complaint on terms that are mutually agreeable to the parties. Treasury may seek the assistance of any involved state agency.
(3) Any settlement agreement will be put in writing and the parties will sign it.
(4) The settlement shall not affect the operation of any other enforcement effort of Treasury, including compliance reviews and investigation of other complaints that may involve the recipient.
(5) The settlement is not a finding of discrimination against a recipient.
(b)
A recipient may not engage in acts of intimidation or retaliation against any person who:
(a) Attempts to assert a right protected by the Act or these regulations; or
(b) Cooperates in any mediation, investigation, hearing, or other part of Treasury's investigation, conciliation, and enforcement process.
(a) Treasury may enforce the Act and these regulations through:
(1) Termination of a recipient's federal financial assistance from Treasury under the program or activity involved where the recipient has violated the Act or these regulations. The determination of the recipient's violation may be made only after a recipient has had an opportunity for a hearing on the record before an administrative law judge.
(2) Any other means authorized by law, including but not limited to:
(i) Referral to the Department of Justice for proceedings to enforce any rights of the United States or obligations of the recipient created by the Act or these regulations.
(ii) Use of any requirement of or referral to any federal, state, or local government agency that will have the effect of correcting a violation of the Act or these regulations.
(b) Treasury will limit any termination under § 23.46(a)(1) to the particular recipient and particular program or activity or part of such program or activity Treasury finds in violation of these regulations. Treasury will not base any part of a termination on a finding with respect to any program or activity of the recipient that does not receive federal financial assistance from Treasury.
(c) Treasury will take no action under paragraph (a) of this section until:
(1) The Secretary has advised the recipient of its failure to comply with the Act and these regulations and has determined that voluntary compliance cannot be obtained.
(2) Thirty days have elapsed after the Secretary has sent a written report of the circumstances and grounds of the action to the committees of Congress having legislative jurisdiction over the federal program or activity involved. The Secretary will file a report whenever any action is taken under paragraph (a) of this section.
(d) Treasury also may defer granting new federal financial assistance to a recipient when a hearing under paragraph (a)(1) of this section is initiated.
(1) New federal financial assistance from Treasury includes all assistance for which Treasury requires an application or approval, including renewal or continuation of existing activities, or authorization of new activities, during the deferral period. New federal financial assistance from Treasury does not include increases in funding as a result of changed computation of formula awards or assistance approved prior to the beginning of a hearing under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(2) Treasury will not begin a deferral until the recipient has received a notice of an opportunity for a hearing under paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Treasury will not continue a deferral for more than 60 days unless a hearing has begun within that time or the time for beginning the hearing has been extended by mutual consent of the recipient and the Secretary. Treasury will not continue a deferral for more than 30 days after the close of the hearing, unless the hearing results in a finding against the recipient.
(3) Treasury will limit any deferral to the particular recipient and particular program or activity or part of such program or activity Treasury finds in violation of these regulations. Treasury will not base any part of a deferral on a finding with respect to any program or activity of the recipient that does not, and would not in connection with the new funds, receive federal financial assistance from Treasury.
Treasury procedural provisions for hearings, decisions, and post-termination proceedings applicable to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (if and when such procedural regulations become published) shall apply to Treasury enforcement of these regulations. Such regulations will be published within title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Where Treasury finds a recipient has discriminated on the basis of age in violation of the Act or this part, the recipient shall take any remedial action that Treasury may require to overcome the effects of the discrimination.
(a) When Treasury withholds funds from a recipient under these regulations, the Secretary may disburse the withheld funds directly to an alternate recipient: Any public or non-profit private organization or agency, or state or political subdivision of the state.
(b) The Secretary will require any alternate recipient to demonstrate:
(1) The ability to comply with these regulations; and
(2) The ability to achieve the goals of the federal statute authorizing the federal financial assistance.
(a) A complainant may file a civil action following the exhaustion of administrative remedies under the Act. Administrative remedies are exhausted if:
(1) 180 days have elapsed since the complainant filed the complaint and Treasury has made no finding with regard to the complainant; or
(2) Treasury issues any finding in favor of the recipient.
(b) If Treasury fails to make a finding within 180 days or issues a finding in favor of the recipient, Treasury shall:
(1) Promptly advise the complainant of this fact; and
(2) Advise the complainant of his or her right to bring a civil action for injunctive relief; and
(3) Inform the complainant:
(i) That the complainant may bring a civil action only in a United States district court for the district in which the recipient is found or transacts business;
(ii) That a complainant prevailing in a civil action has the right to be awarded the costs of the action, including reasonable attorney's fee, but that the complainant must demand these costs in the complaint.
(iii) That before commencing the action the complainant shall give 30 days notice by registered mail to the Secretary, the Secretary of HHS, the Attorney General of the United States, and the recipient.
(iv) That the notice must state: The alleged violation of the Act; the relief requested; the court in which the complainant is bringing the action; and whether or not attorney's fees are demanded in the event the complainant prevails; and
(v) That the complainant may not bring an action if the same alleged violation of the Act by the same recipient is the subject of a pending action in any court of the United States.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing requesting that the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding to consider a change to analytical principles relating to periodic reports (Proposal Six). This notice informs the public of the filing,
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On July 27, 2015, the Postal Service filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11 requesting that the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding in order to consider changes in analytical principles relating to periodic reports.
The Postal Service explains that the current RPW methodology relies on two sources for CNS: (1) CNS system census data regarding transactions involving insured extra services; and (2) statistical estimates from the Origin Destination Information System (ODIS)-RPW probability sampling system for CNS Priority mail that are not associated with insured transactions (including Priority Mail transactions where insurance is included). Petition, Proposal Six at 3. Under Proposal Six, ODIS-RPW statistical sampling estimates would be replaced with the remaining CNS system census transactional data.
As part of the public Excel spreadsheet filed with the Petition, the Postal Service provides an example of the kind of impact that a switch to census data would have on RPW Report data from the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2015.
The Postal Service asserts that the proposed changes will provide “a complete source of transaction-level data for mail piece revenue and volume characteristics, and their associated extra services needed for RPW reporting.”
The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2015-15 for consideration of matters raised by the Petition. Additional information concerning the Petition may be accessed via the Commission's Web site at
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2015-15 for consideration of the matters raised by the Petition of the United States Postal Service Requesting Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider a Proposed Change in Analytical Principles (Proposal Six), filed July 27, 2015.
2. Comments are due no later than September 2, 2015. Reply comments are due no later than September 11, 2015.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Proposed rule; correction.
This document corrects technical errors in the proposed rule that appeared in the July 10, 2015
Comments on the proposed rule published on July 10, 2015 (80 FR 39839), continue to be accepted until September 4, 2015.
Hillary Loeffler, (410) 786-0456.
In FR Doc. 2015-16790, published in the
On page 39854, in our discussion of case-mix weights, there was a sorting error in Table 9: CY 2016 Case-Mix Payment Weights.
On page 39906, in our discussion of the overall impact of the home health prospective payment system in CY 2016, we inadvertently provided the incorrect percent decrease in expenditures when comparing CY 2015 payments to estimated CY 2016 payments.
In FR Doc. 2015-16790 of July 10, 2015 (80 FR 39839), make the following corrections:
On page 39854, Table 9—CY 2016 Case-Mix Payment Weights is corrected to read as follows:
On page 39906, second column, line 31 the number “0.1” is corrected to read “1.8”.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter, Service or we) proposes special migratory bird hunting regulations for certain Tribes on Federal Indian reservations, off-reservation trust lands, and ceded lands for the 2015-16 migratory bird hunting season.
You must submit comments on the proposed regulations by August 14, 2015.
You may submit comments on the proposals by one of the following methods:
•
•
We will post all comments on
Ron W. Kokel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, MS: MB, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; (703) 358-1967.
In the April 13, 2015,
We developed the guidelines for establishing special migratory bird hunting regulations for Indian Tribes in response to tribal requests for recognition of their reserved hunting rights and, for some Tribes, recognition of their authority to regulate hunting by
(1) On-reservation hunting by both tribal and nontribal hunters, with hunting by nontribal hunters on some reservations to take place within Federal frameworks but on dates different from those selected by the surrounding State(s);
(2) On-reservation hunting by tribal members only, outside of the usual Federal frameworks for season dates and length, and for daily bag and possession limits; and
(3) Off-reservation hunting by tribal members on ceded lands, outside of usual framework dates and season length, with some added flexibility in daily bag and possession limits.
In all cases, the regulations established under the guidelines must be consistent with the March 10 to September 1 closed season mandated by the 1916 Convention between the United States and Great Britain (for Canada) for the Protection of Migratory Birds (Treaty). The guidelines apply to those Tribes having recognized reserved hunting rights on Federal Indian reservations (including off-reservation trust lands) and on ceded lands. They also apply to establishing migratory bird hunting regulations for nontribal hunters on all lands within the exterior boundaries of reservations where Tribes have full wildlife management authority over such hunting or where the Tribes and affected States otherwise have reached agreement over hunting by nontribal hunters on lands owned by non-Indians within the reservation.
Tribes usually have the authority to regulate migratory bird hunting by nonmembers on Indian-owned reservation lands, subject to Service approval. The question of jurisdiction is more complex on reservations that include lands owned by non-Indians, especially when the surrounding States have established or intend to establish regulations governing hunting by non-Indians on these lands. In such cases, we encourage the Tribes and States to reach agreement on regulations that would apply throughout the reservations. When appropriate, we will consult with a Tribe and State with the aim of facilitating an accord. We also will consult jointly with tribal and State officials in the affected States where Tribes wish to establish special hunting regulations for tribal members on ceded lands. Because of past questions regarding interpretation of what events trigger the consultation process, as well as who initiates it, we provide the following clarification.
We routinely provide copies of
Our guidelines provide for the continued harvest of waterfowl and other migratory game birds by tribal members on reservations where such harvest has been a customary practice. We do not oppose this harvest, provided it does not take place during the closed season defined by the Treaty, and does not adversely affect the status of the migratory bird resource. Before developing the guidelines, we reviewed available information on the current status of migratory bird populations, reviewed the current status of migratory bird hunting on Federal Indian reservations, and evaluated the potential impact of such guidelines on migratory birds. We concluded that the impact of migratory bird harvest by tribal members hunting on their reservations is minimal.
One area of interest in Indian migratory bird hunting regulations relates to hunting seasons for nontribal hunters on dates that are within Federal frameworks, but which are different from those established by the State(s) where the reservation is located. A large influx of nontribal hunters onto a reservation at a time when the season is closed in the surrounding State(s) could result in adverse population impacts on one or more migratory bird species. The guidelines make this unlikely, and we may modify regulations or establish experimental special hunts, after evaluation of information obtained by the Tribes.
We believe the guidelines provide appropriate opportunity to accommodate the reserved hunting rights and management authority of Indian Tribes while ensuring that the migratory bird resource receives necessary protection. The conservation of this important international resource is paramount. Further, the guidelines should not be viewed as inflexible. In this regard, we note that they have been employed successfully since 1985. We believe they have been tested adequately and, therefore, we made them final beginning with the 1988-89 hunting season (53 FR 31612, August 18, 1988). We should stress here, however, that use of the guidelines is not mandatory and no action is required if a Tribe wishes to observe the hunting regulations established by the State(s) in which the reservation is located.
Participants at the June 24-25, 2015, meetings reviewed information on the current status of migratory shore and upland game birds and developed 2015-16 migratory game bird regulations recommendations for these species plus regulations for migratory game birds in Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands; special September waterfowl seasons in designated States; special sea duck seasons in the Atlantic Flyway; and extended falconry seasons. In addition, we reviewed and discussed preliminary information on the status of waterfowl.
Participants at the previously announced July 29-30, 2015, meetings reviewed information on the current status of waterfowl and developed recommendations for the 2015-16 regulations pertaining to regular waterfowl seasons and other species and seasons not previously discussed at the early-season meetings. In accordance with Department of the Interior policy, these meetings were open to public observation and you may submit comments on the matters discussed.
Preliminary information on the status of waterfowl and information on the status and harvest of migratory shore and upland game birds was excerpted from various reports and provided in the July 21, 2015,
For the 2015-16 hunting season, we received requests from 25 Tribes and Indian organizations. In this proposed rule, we respond to these requests and also evaluate anticipated requests for seven Tribes from whom we usually hear but from whom we have not yet received proposals. We actively solicit regulatory proposals from other tribal groups that are interested in working cooperatively for the benefit of waterfowl and other migratory game birds. We encourage Tribes to work with us to develop agreements for management of migratory bird resources on tribal lands.
It should be noted that this proposed rule includes generalized regulations for both early- and late-season hunting. A final rule will be published in a late-August 2015
In this current rulemaking, because of the compressed timeframe for establishing regulations for Indian Tribes and because final frameworks dates and other specific information are not available, the regulations for many tribal hunting seasons are described in relation to the season dates, season length, and limits that will be permitted when final Federal frameworks are announced for early- and late-season regulations. For example, daily bag and possession limits for ducks on some areas are shown as the same as permitted in Pacific Flyway States under final Federal frameworks, and limits for geese will be shown as the same permitted by the State(s) in which the tribal hunting area is located.
The proposed frameworks for early-season regulations were published in the
The Colorado River Indian Reservation is located in Arizona and California. The Tribes own almost all lands on the reservation, and have full wildlife management authority.
In their 2015-16 proposal, the Colorado River Indian Tribes request split dove seasons. They propose that their early season begin September 1 and end September 15, 2015. Daily bag limits would be 15 mourning or white-winged doves in the aggregate, of which no more than 10 may be white-winged dove. Possession limit would be 45, of which no more than 30 may be white-winged dove. The late season for doves is proposed to open November 7, 2015, and close December 20, 2015. The daily bag limit would be 15 mourning doves. The possession limit would be 45. Shooting hours would be from one-half hour before sunrise to noon in the early season and until sunset in the late season. Other special tribally set regulations would apply.
The Tribes also propose duck hunting seasons. The season would open October 17, 2015, and close January 25, 2016. The Tribes propose the same season dates for mergansers, coots, and common moorhens. The daily bag limit for ducks, including mergansers, would be seven, except that the daily bag limits could contain no more than two hen mallards, two redheads, two Mexican ducks, two goldeneye, three scaup, one pintail, two cinnamon teal, and one canvasback. The possession limit would be twice the daily bag limit after the first day of the season. The daily bag and possession limit for coots and common moorhens would be 25, singly or in the aggregate. Shooting hours would be from one-half hour before sunrise to sunset.
For geese, the Colorado River Indian Tribes propose a season of October 18, 2015, through January 19, 2016. The daily bag limit for geese would be three light geese and three dark geese. The possession limit would be six light geese and six dark geese after opening day. Shooting hours would be from one-half hour before sunrise to sunset.
In 1996, the Tribes conducted a detailed assessment of dove hunting. Results showed approximately 16,100 mourning doves and 13,600 white-winged doves were harvested by approximately 2,660 hunters who averaged 1.45 hunter-days. Field observations and permit sales indicate that fewer than 200 hunters participate in waterfowl seasons. Under the proposed regulations described here and based upon past seasons, we and the Tribes estimate harvest will be similar.
Hunters must have a valid Colorado River Indian Reservation hunting permit and a Federal Migratory Bird Stamp in their possession while hunting. Other special tribally set regulations would apply. As in the past, the regulations would apply both to tribal and nontribal hunters, and nontoxic shot is required for waterfowl hunting.
We propose to approve the Colorado River Indian Tribes regulations for the 2015-16 hunting season, given the seasons' dates fall within final flyway frameworks (applies to nontribal hunters only).
For the past several years, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and the State of Montana have entered into cooperative agreements for the regulation of hunting on the Flathead Indian Reservation. The State and the Tribes are currently operating under a cooperative agreement signed in 1990, which addresses fishing and hunting management and regulation issues of mutual concern. This agreement enables all hunters to utilize waterfowl hunting opportunities on the reservation.
As in the past, tribal regulations for nontribal hunters would be at least as restrictive as those established for the Pacific Flyway portion of Montana. Goose, duck, and coot season dates would also be at least as restrictive as those established for the Pacific Flyway portion of Montana. Shooting hours for waterfowl hunting on the Flathead Reservation are one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. Steel shot or other federally approved nontoxic shots are the only legal shotgun loads on the reservation for waterfowl or other game birds.
For tribal members, the Tribe proposes outside frameworks for ducks and geese of September 1, 2015, through March 9, 2016. Daily bag and possession limits were not proposed for tribal members.
The requested season dates and bag limits are similar to past regulations. Harvest levels are not expected to change significantly. Standardized check station data from the 1993-94 and 1994-95 hunting seasons indicated no significant changes in harvest levels and that the large majority of the harvest is by nontribal hunters.
We propose to approve the Tribes' request for special migratory bird regulations for the 2015-16 hunting season.
Since 1996, the Service and the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians have cooperated to establish special migratory bird hunting regulations for tribal members. The Fond du Lac's May 26, 2015, proposal covers land set apart for the band under the Treaties of 1837 and 1854 in
The band's proposal for 2015-16 is essentially the same as that approved last year. The proposed 2015-16 waterfowl hunting season regulations for Fond du Lac are as follows:
The following general conditions apply:
1. While hunting waterfowl, a tribal member must carry on his/her person a valid Ceded Territory License.
2. Shooting hours for migratory birds are one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset.
3. Except as otherwise noted, tribal members will be required to comply with tribal codes that will be no less restrictive than the provisions of Chapter 10 of the Model Off-Reservation Code. Except as modified by the Service rules adopted in response to this proposal, these amended regulations parallel Federal requirements in 50 CFR part 20 as to hunting methods, transportation, sale, exportation, and other conditions generally applicable to migratory bird hunting.
4. Band members in each zone will comply with State regulations providing for closed and restricted waterfowl hunting areas.
5. There are no possession limits for migratory birds. For purposes of enforcing bag limits, all migratory birds in the possession or custody of band members on ceded lands will be considered to have been taken on those lands unless tagged by a tribal or State conservation warden as having been taken on-reservation. All migratory birds that fall on reservation lands will not count as part of any off-reservation bag or possession limit.
The band anticipates harvest will be fewer than 500 ducks and geese, and fewer than 10 sandhill cranes.
We propose to approve the request for special migratory bird hunting regulations for the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians.
In the 1995-96 migratory bird seasons, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians and the Service first cooperated to establish special regulations for waterfowl. The Grand Traverse Band is a self-governing, federally recognized Tribe located on the west arm of Grand Traverse Bay in Leelanau County, Michigan. The Grand Traverse Band is a signatory Tribe of the Treaty of 1836. We have approved special regulations for tribal members of the 1836 treaty's signatory Tribes on ceded lands in Michigan since the 1986-87 hunting season.
For the 2015-16 season, the Tribe requests that the tribal member duck season run from September 1, 2015, through January 15, 2016. A daily bag limit of 25 would include no more than 6 pintail, 4 canvasback, 1 hooded merganser, 6 black ducks, 6 wood ducks, 5 redheads, and 12 mallards (only 6 of which may be hens).
For Canada and snow geese, the Tribe proposes a September 1 through January 31, 2016, season. For white-fronted geese and brant, the Tribe proposes a September 20 through December 30, 2015, season. The daily bag limit for Canada and snow geese would be 10, and the daily bag limit for white-fronted geese and including brant would be 5 birds. We further note that, based on available data (of major goose migration routes), it is unlikely that any Canada geese from the Southern James Bay Population will be harvested by the Tribe.
For woodcock, the Tribe proposes a September 1 through November 14, 2015, season. The daily bag limit will not exceed five birds. For mourning doves, snipe, and rails, the Tribe proposes a September 1 through November 14, 2015, season. The daily bag limit would be 10 per species.
For sandhill crane, the Tribe proposes a September 1 through November 14, 2015, season. The daily bag limit would be two birds and a season limit of six birds.
Shooting hours would be from one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. All other Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20 would apply. The Tribe proposes to monitor harvest closely through game bag checks, patrols, and mail surveys. Harvest surveys from the 2013-14 hunting season indicated that approximately 30 tribal hunters harvested an estimated 100 ducks and 45 Canada geese.
We propose to approve the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians 2015-16 special migratory bird hunting proposal.
Since 1985, various bands of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians have exercised judicially recognized, off-reservation hunting rights for migratory birds in Wisconsin. The specific regulations were established by the Service in consultation with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) (GLIFWC is an intertribal agency exercising delegated natural resource management and regulatory authority from its member Tribes in portions of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota). Beginning in 1986, a Tribal season on ceded lands in the western portion of the Michigan Upper Peninsula was developed in coordination with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. We have approved regulations for Tribal members in both Michigan and Wisconsin since the 1986-87 hunting season. In 1987, GLIFWC requested, and we approved, regulations to permit Tribal members to hunt on ceded lands in Minnesota, as well as in Michigan and Wisconsin. The States of Michigan and Wisconsin originally concurred with the regulations, although both Wisconsin and Michigan have raised various concerns over the years. Minnesota did not concur with the original regulations, stressing that the State would not recognize Chippewa Indian hunting rights in Minnesota's treaty area until a court with jurisdiction over the State acknowledges and defines the extent of these rights. In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the existence of the tribes' treaty reserved rights in
We acknowledge all of the States' concerns, but point out that the U.S. Government has recognized the Indian treaty reserved rights, and that acceptable hunting regulations have been successfully implemented in Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Consequently, in view of the above, we have approved regulations since the 1987-88 hunting season on ceded lands in all three States. In fact, this recognition of the principle of treaty reserved rights for band members to hunt and fish was pivotal in our decision to approve a 1991-92 season for the 1836 ceded area in Michigan. Since then, in the 2007 Consent Decree the 1836 Treaty Tribes' and Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment established court-approved regulations pertaining to off-reservation hunting rights for migratory birds.
For 2015, the GLIFWC proposes off-reservation special migratory bird hunting regulations on behalf of the member Tribes of the Voigt Intertribal Task Force of the GLIFWC (for the 1837 and 1842 Treaty areas in Wisconsin and Michigan), the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe and the six Wisconsin Bands (for the 1837 Treaty area in Minnesota), and the Bay Mills Indian Community (for the 1836 Treaty area in Michigan). Member Tribes of the Task Force are: The Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, the St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, and the Sokaogon Chippewa Community (Mole Lake Band), all in Wisconsin; the Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians and the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians in Minnesota; and the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Chippewa Indians and the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community in Michigan.
The GLIFWC 2015 proposal has two changes from regulations approved last season. In the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas, the GLIFWC proposal would allow the use of electronic calls for any open season under a limited and experimental design with up to only 50 Tribal hunters to obtain permits and use electronic calls during any open season. In addition to obtaining a special permit, the Tribal hunter would be required to complete and submit a hunt diary for each hunt where electronic calls were used. In addition, GLIFWC would also like to extend the mourning dove season dates from September 1 through November 9 to September 1 through November 29.
GLIFWC states that the proposed regulatory changes are intended to increase the subsistence opportunities for tribal migratory bird hunters and provide opportunities for more efficient harvesting. Under the GLIFWC's proposed regulations, GLIFWC expects total ceded territory harvest to be approximately 1,650 ducks, 375 geese, 20 sandhill cranes, and 20 swans, which is roughly similar to anticipated levels in previous years for those species for which seasons were established. GLIWFC further anticipates that tribal harvest will remain low given the small number of tribal hunters and the limited opportunity to harvest more than a small number of birds on most hunting trips.
Recent GLIFWC harvest surveys (1996-98, 2001, 2004, 2007-08, 2011, and 2012) indicate that tribal off-reservation waterfowl harvest has averaged fewer than 1,100 ducks and 250 geese annually. In the latest survey year for which we have specific results (2012), an estimated 86 hunters took an estimated 1,090 trips and harvested 1,799 ducks (1.7 ducks per trip) and 822 geese. Two sandhill cranes were reported harvested in each of the first three Tribal sandhill crane seasons, and no swans were harvested in 2014. Analysis of hunter survey data over 1996-2012 indicates a general downward trend in both harvest and hunter participation. While we acknowledge that tribal harvest and participation has declined in recent years, we do not believe that allowing the use of electronic calls at this time for tribal waterfowl seasons on ceded lands in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota for the 2015-16 season is in the best interest of the conservation of migratory birds. We have no issues with extending the mourning dove season. More specific discussion on the use of electronic calls follows below.
As we have stated the last four years (76 FR 54676, September 1, 2011; 77 FR 54451, September 5, 2012; 78 FR 53218, August 28, 2013; 79 FR 52226, September 3, 2014), the issue of allowing electronic calls and other electronic devices for migratory game bird hunting has been highly debated and highly controversial over the last 40 years, similar to other prohibited hunting methods such as baiting. Electronic calls,
In our previous responses on this issue, we have also provided discussion on available information from the use of electronic calls during the special light-goose seasons and our belief to its applicability to most waterfowl species. Given available evidence on the effectiveness of electronic calls, we continue to be concerned about the large biological uncertainty surrounding any widespread use of electronic calls. Additionally, given the fact that tribal waterfowl hunting covered by this proposal would occur on ceded lands that are not in the ownership of the Tribes, we remain very concerned that the use of electronic calls to take waterfowl would lead to confusion on the part of the public, wildlife-management agencies, and law enforcement officials in implementing the requirements of 50 CFR part 20. Further, similar to the impacts of baiting, uncertainties concerning the zone of influence attributed to the use of electronic calls could potentially increase harvest from nontribal hunters operating within areas electronic calls are being used during the dates of the general hunt.
Notwithstanding our concerns, we understand GLIFWC's position on this issue, their desire to increase tribal hunter opportunity, harvest, and participation, and the importance that GLIFWC has ascribed to these issues. In our recent discussions with them this summer, they have expressed a willingness to work with us to further discuss these issues, all the uncertainties and difficulties surrounding them, and the overall Federal-Tribal process for addressing these and other such issues. However, we have only recently begun such discussions. As such, we are not yet at a point that would allow our approval of this proposal, or any such proposal. Further, we believe it would be premature at his time to approve such a measure, or any such measure, until we finalize the Federal-Tribal process, roles, and responsibilities for addressing this and other such issues. It is our hope that over the next year, we can continue these discussions. We remain hopeful that we can reach a mutually agreeable resolution.
Thus, at this time, removal of the electronic call prohibition, even with the proposed limited and experimental design, would be inconsistent with our long-standing concerns, and we do not support allowing the use of electronic calls in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas for any open season.
The proposed 2015-16 waterfowl hunting season regulations apply to all treaty areas (except where noted) for GLIFWC as follows:
A. All tribal members will be required to obtain a valid tribal waterfowl hunting permit.
B. Except as otherwise noted, tribal members will be required to comply with tribal codes that will be no less restrictive than the model ceded territory conservation codes approved by Federal courts in the
1. Nontoxic shot will be required for all waterfowl hunting by tribal members.
2. Tribal members in each zone will comply with tribal regulations providing for closed and restricted waterfowl hunting areas. These regulations generally incorporate the same restrictions contained in parallel State regulations.
3. There are no possession limits, with the exception of 2 swans (in the aggregate) and 25 rails (in the aggregate). For purposes of enforcing bag limits, all migratory birds in the possession and custody of tribal members on ceded
4. The baiting restrictions included in the respective section 10.05(2)(h) of the model ceded territory conservation codes will be amended to include language which parallels that in place for nontribal members as published at 64 FR 29799, June 3, 1999.
5. There are no shell limit restrictions.
6. Hunting hours are from 30 minutes before sunrise to 30 minutes after sunset.
We propose to approve the above GLIFWC regulations for the 2015-16 hunting season.
The Jicarilla Apache Tribe has had special migratory bird hunting regulations for tribal members and nonmembers since the 1986-87 hunting season. The Tribe owns all lands on the reservation and has recognized full wildlife management authority. In general, the proposed seasons would be more conservative than allowed by the Federal frameworks of last season and by States in the Pacific Flyway.
The Tribe proposes a 2015-16 waterfowl and Canada goose season beginning October 10, 2015, and a closing date of November 30, 2015. Daily bag and possession limits for waterfowl would be the same as Pacific Flyway States. The Tribe proposes a daily bag limit for Canada geese of two. Other regulations specific to the Pacific Flyway guidelines for New Mexico would be in effect.
During the Jicarilla Game and Fish Department's 2014-15 season, estimated duck harvest was 83, which is the lowest on record. The species composition included mainly mallards, northern shovelor, gadwall, American wigeon, and teal. The estimated harvest of geese was 7 birds.
The proposed regulations are essentially the same as were established last year. The Tribe anticipates the maximum 2015-16 waterfowl harvest would be around 300 ducks and 30 geese.
We propose to approve the Tribe's requested 2015-16 hunting seasons.
The Kalispel Reservation was established by Executive Order in 1914, and currently comprises approximately 4,600 acres. The Tribe owns all Reservation land and has full management authority. The Kalispel Tribe has a fully developed wildlife program with hunting and fishing codes. The Tribe enjoys excellent wildlife management relations with the State. The Tribe and the State have an operational memorandum of understanding with emphasis on fisheries but also for wildlife.
The nontribal member seasons described below pertain to a 176-acre waterfowl management unit and 800 acres of reservation land with a guide for waterfowl hunting. The Tribe is utilizing this opportunity to rehabilitate an area that needs protection because of past land use practices, as well as to provide additional waterfowl hunting in the area. Beginning in 1996, the requested regulations also included a proposal for Kalispel-member-only migratory bird hunting on Kalispel-ceded lands within Washington, Montana, and Idaho.
For the 2015-16 migratory bird hunting seasons, the Kalispel Tribe proposes tribal and nontribal member waterfowl seasons. The Tribe requests that both duck and goose seasons open at the earliest possible date and close on the latest date under Federal frameworks.
For nontribal hunters on Tribally managed lands, the Tribe requests the seasons open at the earliest possible date and remain open, for the maximum amount of open days. Specifically, the Tribe requests that the season for ducks begin October 3, 2015, and end January 17, 2016. In that period, nontribal hunters would be allowed to hunt approximately 107 days. Hunters should obtain further information on specific hunt days from the Kalispel Tribe.
For nontribal hunters on Tribally managed lands, the Tribe also requests the season for geese run from September 5 to September 13, 2015, and from October 3, 2015, to January 17, 2016. Total number of days should not exceed 107. Nontribal hunters should obtain further information on specific hunt days from the Tribe. Daily bag and possession limits would be the same as those for the State of Washington.
The Tribe reports past nontribal harvest of 1.5 ducks per day. Under the proposal, the Tribe expects harvest to be similar to last year, that is, fewer than 100 geese and 200 ducks.
All other State and Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20, such as use of nontoxic shot and possession of a signed migratory bird hunting stamp, would be required.
For tribal members on Kalispel-ceded lands, the Kalispel Tribe proposes season dates for ducks of October 3, 2015, through January 31, 2016, and for geese of September 5, 2015, through January 31, 2016. Daily bag and possession limits would parallel those in the Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20.
The Tribe reports that there was no tribal harvest. Under the proposal, the Tribe expects harvest to be fewer than 200 birds for the season with fewer than 100 geese. Tribal members would be required to possess a signed Federal migratory bird stamp and a tribal ceded lands permit.
We propose to approve the regulations requested by the Kalispel Tribe, provided that the nontribal seasons conform to Treaty limitations and final Federal frameworks for the Pacific Flyway.
The Klamath Tribe currently has no reservation, per se. However, the Klamath Tribe has reserved hunting, fishing, and gathering rights within its former reservation boundary. This area of former reservation, granted to the Klamaths by the Treaty of 1864, is over 1 million acres. Tribal natural resource management authority is derived from the Treaty of 1864, and carried out cooperatively under the judicially enforced Consent Decree of 1981. The parties to this Consent Decree are the Federal Government, the State of Oregon, and the Klamath Tribe. The Klamath Indian Game Commission sets the seasons. The tribal biological staff and tribal regulatory enforcement officers monitor tribal harvest by frequent bag checks and hunter interviews.
For the 2015-16 season, we have not yet heard from the Tribe; however, the Tribe usually requests proposed season dates of October 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016. Daily bag limits would be 9 for ducks, 9 for geese, and 9 for coot, with possession limits twice the daily bag limit. Shooting hours would be one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. Steel shot is required.
Based on the number of birds produced in the Klamath Basin, this year's harvest would be similar to last year's. Information on tribal harvest suggests that more than 70 percent of the annual goose harvest is local birds produced in the Klamath Basin.
If we receive a proposal that matches the Tribe's usual request, we propose to approve those 2015-16 special migratory bird hunting regulations.
The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe is a federally recognized Tribe located in Cass Lake, Minnesota. The reservation employs conservation officers to enforce conservation regulations. The Service and the Tribe have cooperatively established migratory bird hunting regulations since 2000.
For the 2015-16 season, the Tribe requests a duck season starting on September 15 and ending December 31, 2015, and a goose season to run from September 1 through December 31, 2015. Daily bag limits for ducks would be 10, including no more than 5 pintail, 5 canvasback, and 5 black ducks. Daily bag limits for geese would be 10. Possession limits would be twice the daily bag limit. Shooting hours are one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset.
The annual harvest by tribal members on the Leech Lake Reservation is estimated at 250 to 500 birds.
We propose to approve the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe's requested 2015-16 special migratory bird hunting season.
The Little River Band of Ottawa Indians is a self-governing, federally recognized Tribe located in Manistee, Michigan, and a signatory Tribe of the Treaty of 1836. We have approved special regulations for tribal members of the 1836 treaty's signatory Tribes on ceded lands in Michigan since the 1986-87 hunting season. Ceded lands are located in Lake, Mason, Manistee, and Wexford Counties. The Band normally proposes regulations to govern the hunting of migratory birds by Tribal members within the 1836 Ceded Territory as well as on the Band's Reservation.
For the 2015-16 season, we have yet to hear from the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians. The Little River Band of Ottawa Indians usually proposes a duck and merganser season from September 12, 2015, through January 25, 2016. A daily bag limit of 12 ducks would include no more than 2 pintail, 2 canvasback, 3 black ducks, 3 wood ducks, 3 redheads, 6 mallards (only 2 of which may be a hen), and 1 hooded merganser. Possession limits would be twice the daily bag limit.
For white-fronted geese, snow geese, and brant, the Tribe usually proposes a September 19 through November 30, 2015, season. Daily bag limits would be five geese.
For Canada geese only, the Tribe usually proposes a September 1, 2015, through February 8, 2016, season with a daily bag limit of five. The possession limit would be twice the daily bag limit.
For snipe, woodcock, rails, and mourning doves, the Tribe usually proposes a September 1 to November 14, 2015, season. The daily bag limit would be 10 common snipe, 5 woodcock, 10 rails, and 10 mourning doves. Possession limits for all species would be twice the daily bag limit.
The Tribe monitors harvest through mail surveys. General conditions are as follows:
A. All tribal members will be required to obtain a valid tribal resource card and 2015-16 hunting license.
B. Except as modified by the Service rules adopted in response to this proposal, these amended regulations parallel all Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20.
C. Particular regulations of note include:
(1) Nontoxic shot will be required for all waterfowl hunting by tribal members.
(2) Tribal members in each zone will comply with tribal regulations providing for closed and restricted waterfowl hunting areas. These regulations generally incorporate the same restrictions contained in parallel State regulations.
D. Tribal members hunting in Michigan will comply with tribal codes that contain provisions parallel to Michigan law regarding duck blinds and decoys.
We plan to approve Little River Band of Ottawa Indians' 2015-16 special migratory bird hunting seasons upon receipt of their proposal.
The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians (LTBB) is a self-governing, federally recognized Tribe located in Petoskey, Michigan, and a signatory Tribe of the Treaty of 1836. We have approved special regulations for tribal members of the 1836 treaty's signatory Tribes on ceded lands in Michigan since the 1986-87 hunting season.
For the 2015-16 season, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians propose regulations similar to those of other Tribes in the 1836 treaty area. LTBB proposes the regulations to govern the hunting of migratory birds by tribal members on the LTBB reservation and within the 1836 Treaty Ceded Territory. The tribal member duck and merganser season would run from September 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016. A daily bag limit of 20 ducks and 10 mergansers would include no more than 5 hen mallards, 5 pintail, 5 canvasback, 5 scaup, 5 hooded merganser, 5 black ducks, 5 wood ducks, and 5 redheads.
For Canada geese, the LTBB proposes a September 1, 2015, through February 8, 2016, season. The daily bag limit for Canada geese would be 20 birds. We further note that, based on available data (of major goose migration routes), it is unlikely that any Canada geese from the Southern James Bay Population would be harvested by the LTBB. Possession limits are twice the daily bag limit.
For woodcock, the LTBB proposes a September 1 to December 1, 2015, season. The daily bag limit will not exceed 10 birds. For snipe, the LTBB proposes a September 1 to December 31, 2015, season. The daily bag limit will not exceed 16 birds. For mourning doves, the LTBB proposes a September 1 to November 14, 2015, season. The daily bag limit will not exceed 15 birds. For Virginia and sora rails, the LTBB proposes a September 1 to December 31, 2015, season. The daily bag limit will not exceed 20 birds per species. For coots and gallinules, the LTBB proposes a September 15 to December 31, 2015, season. The daily bag limit will not exceed 20 birds per species. The possession limit will not exceed 2 days' bag limit for all birds.
The LTBB also proposes a sandhill crane season to begin September 1 and end December 1, 2015. The daily bag limit will not exceed one bird. The possession limit will not exceed two times the bag limit.
All other Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20 would apply.
Harvest surveys from 2014-15 hunting season indicated that approximately 10 hunters harvested 10 different waterfowl species totaling 69 birds. No sandhill cranes were reported harvested during the 2014-15 season. The LTBB proposes to monitor harvest closely through game bag checks, patrols, and mail surveys. In particular, the LTBB proposes monitoring the harvest of Southern James Bay Canada geese and sandhill cranes to assess any impacts of tribal hunting on the population.
We propose to approve the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians' requested 2015-16 special migratory bird hunting regulations.
The Lower Brule Sioux Tribe first established tribal migratory bird hunting regulations for the Lower Brule Reservation in 1994. The Lower Brule Reservation is about 214,000 acres in size and is located on and adjacent to the Missouri River, south of Pierre. Land ownership on the reservation is mixed, and until recently, the Lower Brule Tribe had full management authority over fish and wildlife via a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the State of South Dakota. The MOA provided the Tribe jurisdiction over fish and wildlife on reservation lands, including deeded and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-taken lands. For the 2015-16 season, the two parties have come to an agreement that provides the public a clear understanding of the Lower Brule Sioux Wildlife Department license requirements and hunting season regulations. The Lower Brule Reservation waterfowl season is open to tribal and nontribal hunters.
For the 2015-16 migratory bird hunting season, the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe proposes a nontribal member duck, merganser, and coot season length of 97 days, or the maximum number of days allowed by Federal frameworks in the High Plains Management Unit for this season. The Tribe proposes a duck season from October 10, 2015, through January 14, 2016. The daily bag limit would be six birds or the maximum number that Federal regulations allow, including no more than two hen mallard and five mallards total, two pintail, two redhead, two canvasback, three wood duck, three scaup, and one mottled duck. The daily bag limit for mergansers would be five, only two of which could be a hooded merganser. The daily bag limit for coots would be 15. Possession limits would be three times the daily bag limits.
The Tribe's proposed nontribal-member Canada goose season would run from October 31, 2015, through February 14, 2016 (107-day season length), with a daily bag limit of six Canada geese. The Tribe's proposed nontribal member white-fronted goose season would run from October 31, 2015, through January 26, 2016, with a daily bag and possession limits concurrent with Federal regulations. The Tribe's proposed nontribal-member light goose season would run from October 31, 2015, through February 14, 2016, and February 15 through May 3, 2016. The light goose daily bag limit would be 20 or the maximum number that Federal regulations allow with no possession limits.
For tribal members, the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe proposes a duck, merganser, and coot season from September 1, 2015, through March 10, 2016. The daily bag limit would be six ducks, including no more than two hen mallard and five mallards total, two pintail, two redheads, two canvasback, three wood ducks, three scaup, and one mottled duck or the maximum number that Federal regulations allow. The daily bag limit for mergansers would be five, only two of which could be hooded mergansers. The daily bag limit for coots would be 15. Possession limits would be three times the daily bag limits.
The Tribe's proposed Canada goose season for tribal members would run from September 1, 2015, through March 10, 2016, with a daily bag limit of six Canada geese. The Tribe's proposed white-fronted goose tribal season would run from September 1, 2015, through March 10, 2016, with a daily bag limit of two white-fronted geese or the maximum number that Federal regulations allow. The Tribe's proposed light goose tribal season would run from September 1, 2015, through March 10, 2016. The light goose daily bag limit would be 20 or the maximum number that Federal regulations allow, with no possession limits.
In the 2013-14 season, non-tribal members harvested 641 geese and 1,616 ducks. In the 2013-14 season, duck harvest species composition was primarily mallard (67 percent), gadwall (5 percent), green-winged teal (7 percent), and wigeon (5 percent).
The Tribe anticipates a duck and goose harvest similar to those of the previous years. All basic Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20, including the use of nontoxic shot, Migratory Waterfowl Hunting and Conservation Stamps, etc., would be observed by the Tribe's proposed regulations. In addition, the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe has an official Conservation Code that was established by Tribal Council Resolution in June 1982 and updated in 1996.
We plan to approve the Tribe's requested regulations for the Lower Brule Reservation if the seasons' dates fall within final Federal flyway frameworks (applies to nontribal hunters only).
Since 1996, the Service and the Point No Point Treaty Tribes, of which Lower Elwha was one, have cooperated to establish special regulations for migratory bird hunting. The Tribes are now acting independently, and the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe would like to establish migratory bird hunting regulations for tribal members for the 2015-16 season. The Tribe has a reservation on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State and is a successor to the signatories of the Treaty of Point No Point of 1855.
For the 2015-16 season, we have yet to hear from the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe. The Tribe usually requests special migratory bird hunting regulations for ducks (including mergansers), geese, coots, band-tailed pigeons, snipe, and mourning doves. The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe usually requests a duck and coot season from September 13, 2015, to January 4, 2016. The daily bag limit will be seven ducks, including no more than two hen mallards, one pintail, one canvasback, and two redheads. The daily bag and possession limit on harlequin duck will be one per season. The coot daily bag limit will be 25. The possession limit will be twice the daily bag limit, except as noted above.
For geese, the Tribe usually requests a season from September 13, 2015, to January 4, 2016. The daily bag limit will be four, including no more than three light geese. The season on Aleutian Canada geese will be closed.
For brant, the Tribe usually proposes to close the season.
For mourning doves, band-tailed pigeon, and snipe, the Tribe usually requests a season from September 1, 2015, to January 11, 2016, with a daily bag limit of 10, 2, and 8, respectively. The possession limit will be twice the daily bag limit.
All Tribal hunters authorized to hunt migratory birds are required to obtain a tribal hunting permit from the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe pursuant to tribal law. Hunting hours would be from one-half hour before sunrise to sunset. Only steel, tungsten-iron, tungsten-polymer, tungsten-matrix, and tin shot are allowed for hunting waterfowl. It is unlawful to use or possess lead shot while hunting waterfowl.
The Tribe typically anticipates harvest to be fewer than 10 birds. Tribal reservation police and Tribal fisheries enforcement officers have the authority to enforce these migratory bird hunting regulations.
The Service proposes to approve the special migratory bird hunting regulations for the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe upon receipt of their proposal.
The Makah Indian Tribe and the Service have been cooperating to establish special regulations for migratory game birds on the Makah Reservation and traditional hunting land off the Makah Reservation since the 2001-02 hunting season. Lands off the Makah Reservation are those contained within the boundaries of the State of Washington Game Management Units 601-603.
The Makah Indian Tribe proposes a duck and coot hunting season from September 26, 2015, to January 31, 2016. The daily bag limit is seven ducks, including no more than five mallards (only two hen mallard), one canvasback, one pintail, three scaup, and one redhead. The daily bag limit for coots is 25. The Tribe has a year-round closure on wood ducks and harlequin ducks. Shooting hours for all species of waterfowl are one-half hour before sunrise to sunset.
For geese, the Tribe proposes that the season open on September 26, 2015, and close January 31, 2016. The daily bag limit for geese is four and one brant. The Tribe notes that there is a year-round closure on Aleutian and dusky Canada geese.
For band-tailed pigeons, the Tribe proposes that the season open September 12, 2015, and close October 25, 2015. The daily bag limit for band-tailed pigeons is two.
The Tribe anticipates that harvest under this regulation will be relatively low since there are no known dedicated waterfowl hunters and any harvest of waterfowl or band-tailed pigeons is usually incidental to hunting for other species, such as deer, elk, and bear. The Tribe expects fewer than 50 ducks and 10 geese to be harvested during the 2015-16 migratory bird hunting season.
All other Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20 would apply. The following restrictions are also usually proposed by the Tribe:
(1) As per Makah Ordinance 44, only shotguns may be used to hunt any species of waterfowl. Additionally, shotguns must not be discharged within 0.25 miles of an occupied area.
(2) Hunters must be eligible, enrolled Makah tribal members and must carry their Indian Treaty Fishing and Hunting Identification Card while hunting. No tags or permits are required to hunt waterfowl.
(3) The Cape Flattery area is open to waterfowl hunting, except in designated wilderness areas, or within 1 mile of Cape Flattery Trail, or in any area that is closed to hunting by another ordinance or regulation.
(4) The use of live decoys and/or baiting to pursue any species of waterfowl is prohibited.
(5) Steel or bismuth shot only for waterfowl is allowed; the use of lead shot is prohibited.
(6) The use of dogs is permitted to hunt waterfowl.
The Service proposes to approve the Makah Indian Tribe's requested 2015-16 special migratory bird hunting regulations.
Since 1985, we have established uniform migratory bird hunting regulations for tribal members and nonmembers on the Navajo Indian Reservation (in parts of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah). The Navajo Nation owns almost all lands on the reservation and has full wildlife management authority.
For the 2015-16 season, the Tribe requests the earliest opening dates and longest duck, mergansers, Canada geese and coots seasons, and the same daily bag and possession limits allowed to Pacific Flyway States under final Federal frameworks for tribal and non-tribal members.
For both mourning dove and band-tailed pigeons, the Navajo Nation proposes seasons of September 1 through September 30, 2015, with daily bag limits of 10 and 5, respectively. Possession limits would be twice the daily bag limits.
The Nation requires tribal members and nonmembers to comply with all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations in 50 CFR part 20 pertaining to shooting hours and manner of taking. In addition, each waterfowl hunter 16 years of age or over must carry on his/her person a valid Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck Stamp), which must be signed in ink across the face. Special regulations established by the Navajo Nation also apply on the reservation.
The Tribe anticipates a total harvest of fewer than 500 mourning doves; fewer than 10 band-tailed pigeons; fewer than 1,000 ducks, coots, and mergansers; and fewer than 1,000 Canada geese for the 2015-16 season. The Tribe measures harvest by mail survey forms. Through the established Navajo Nation Code, titles 17 and 18, and 23 U.S.C. 1165, the Tribe will take action to close the season, reduce bag limits, or take other appropriate actions if the harvest is detrimental to the migratory bird resource.
We propose to approve those the Navajo Nation's 2015-16 special migratory bird hunting regulations.
Since 1991-92, the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin and the Service have cooperated to establish uniform regulations for migratory bird hunting by tribal and nontribal hunters within the original Oneida Reservation boundaries. Since 1985, the Oneida Tribe's Conservation Department has enforced the Tribe's hunting regulations within those original reservation limits. The Oneida Tribe also has a good working relationship with the State of Wisconsin and the majority of the seasons and limits are the same for the Tribe and Wisconsin.
For the 2015-16 season, the Tribe submitted a proposal requesting special migratory bird hunting regulations. For ducks, the Tribe proposal describes the general outside dates as being September 19 through December 6, 2015, with a closed segment of November 21 to 29, 2015. The Tribe proposes a daily bag limit of six birds, which could include no more than six mallards (three hen mallards), six wood ducks, one redhead, two pintails, and one hooded merganser.
For geese, the Tribe requests a season between September 1 and December 31, 2015, with a daily bag limit of five Canada geese. The Tribe will close the season November 21 to 29, 2015. If a quota of 500 geese is attained before the season concludes, the Tribe will recommend closing the season early.
For woodcock, the Tribe proposes a season between September 5 and November 1, 2015, with a daily bag and possession limit of two and four, respectively.
For mourning dove, the Tribe proposes a season between September 5 and November 1, 2015, with a daily bag and possession limit of 10 and 20, respectively.
The Tribe proposes shooting hours be one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. Nontribal hunters hunting on the Reservation or on lands under the jurisdiction of the Tribe must comply with all State of Wisconsin regulations, including shooting hours of one-half hour before sunrise to sunset, season dates, and daily bag limits. Tribal members and nontribal hunters hunting on the Reservation or on lands under the jurisdiction of the Tribe must observe all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations found in 50 CFR part 20, with the following exceptions: Oneida members would be exempt from
The Service proposes to approve the 2015-16 special migratory bird hunting regulations for the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin.
We are establishing uniform migratory bird hunting regulations for tribal members on behalf of the Point No Point Treaty Council Tribes, consisting of the Port Gamble S'Klallam and Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes. The two tribes have reservations and ceded areas in northwestern Washington State and are the successors to the signatories of the Treaty of Point No Point of 1855. These proposed regulations will apply to tribal members both on and off reservations within the Point No Point Treaty Areas; however, the Port Gamble S'Klallam and Jamestown S'Klallam Tribal season dates differ only where indicated below.
For the 2015-16 season, the Point No Point Treaty Council requests special migratory bird hunting regulations for both the Jamestown S'Klallam and Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribes. For ducks, the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe season would open September 1, 2015, and close March 10, 2016, and coots would open September 13, 2015, and close February 1, 2016. The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribes duck and coot seasons would open from September 1, 2015, to March 10, 2016. The daily bag limit would be seven ducks, including no more than two hen mallards, one canvasback, one pintail, two redhead, and four scoters. The daily bag limit for coots would be 25. The daily bag limit and possession limit on harlequin ducks would be one per season. The daily possession limits are double the daily bag limits except where noted.
For geese, the Point No Point Treaty Council proposes the season open on September 9, 2015, and close March 10, 2016, for the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, and open on September 1, 2015, and close March 10, 2016, for the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. The daily bag limit for geese would be four, not to include more than three light geese. The Council notes that there is a year-round closure on dusky Canada geese. For brant, the Council proposes the season open on November 9, 2015, and close January 31, 2016, for the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, and open on January 10 and close January 25, 2016, for the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe. The daily bag limit for brant would be two.
For band-tailed pigeons, the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe season would open September 1, 2015, and close March 10, 2016. The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe season would open September 13, 2015, and close January 18, 2016. The daily bag limit for band-tailed pigeons would be two. For snipe, the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe season would open September 1, 2015, and close March 10, 2016. The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe season would open September 13, 2015, and close March 10, 2016. The daily bag limit for snipe would be eight. For mourning dove, the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe season would open September 1, 2015, and close January 31, 2016. The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe would open September 13, 2015, and close January 18, 2016. The daily bag limit for mourning dove would be 10.
The Tribe anticipates a total harvest of fewer than 200 birds for the 2015-16 season. The tribal fish and wildlife enforcement officers have the authority to enforce these tribal regulations.
We propose to approve the Point No Point Treaty Council Tribe's requested 2015-16 special migratory bird seasons.
The Saginaw Tribe of Chippewa Indians is a federally recognized, self-governing Indian Tribe, located on the Isabella Reservation lands bound by Saginaw Bay in Isabella and Arenac Counties, Michigan.
In a May 28, 2015, letter, the Tribe proposes special migratory bird hunting regulations. For ducks, mergansers, and common snipe, the Tribe proposes outside dates as September 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016. The Tribe proposes a daily bag limit of 20 ducks, which could include no more than five each of the following: Hen mallards; wood duck; black duck; pintail; red head; scaup; and canvasback. The merganser daily bag limit is 10 with no more than 5 hooded mergansers and 16 for common snipe.
For geese, coot, gallinule, sora, and Virginia rail, the Tribe requests a season from September 1, 2015, to January 31, 2016. The daily bag limit for geese is 20, in the aggregate. The daily bag limit for coot, gallinule, sora, and Virginia rail is 20 in the aggregate.
For woodcock and mourning dove, the Tribe proposes a season between September 1, 2015, and January 31, 2016, with daily bag limits of 10 and 25, respectively.
For sandhill crane, the Tribe proposes a season between September 1, 2015, and January 31, 2016, with a daily bag limit of one.
All Saginaw Tribe members exercising hunting treaty rights are required to comply with Tribal Ordinance 11. Hunting hours would be from one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. All other regulations in 50 CFR part 20 apply including the use of only nontoxic shot for hunting waterfowl.
The Service proposes to approve the request for 2015-16 special migratory bird hunting regulations for the Saginaw Tribe of Chippewa Indians.
The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians is a federally recognized, self-governing Indian Tribe, distributed throughout the eastern Upper Peninsula and northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan. The Tribe has retained the right to hunt, fish, trap, and gather on the lands ceded in the Treaty of Washington (1836).
The Tribe proposes special migratory bird hunting regulations. For ducks, mergansers, and common snipe, the Tribe proposes outside dates as September 15 through December 31, 2015. The Tribe proposes a daily bag limit of 20 ducks, which could include no more than 10 mallards (5 hen mallards), 5 wood duck, 5 black duck, and 5 canvasbacks. The merganser daily bag limit is 10 in the aggregate and 16 for common snipe.
For geese, teal, coot, gallinule, sora, and Virginia rail, the Tribe requests a season from September 1 to December 31, 2015. The daily bag limit for geese is 20, in the aggregate. The daily bag limit for coot, teal, gallinule, sora, and Virginia rail is 20 in the aggregate.
For woodcock, the Tribe proposes a season between September 2 and December 1, 2015, with a daily bag and possession limit of 10 and 20, respectively.
For mourning dove, the Tribe proposes a season between September 1 and November 14, 2015, with a daily bag and possession limit of 10 and 20, respectively.
In 2014, the total estimated waterfowl hunters were 266. All Sault Ste. Marie Tribe members exercising hunting treaty rights within the 1836 Ceded Territory are required to submit annual harvest reports including date of harvest, number and species harvested, and location of harvest. Hunting hours would be from one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. All other regulations in 50 CFR part 20
The Service proposes to approve the request for 2015-16 special migratory bird hunting regulations for the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians.
Almost all of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation is tribally owned. The Tribes claim full wildlife management authority throughout the reservation, but the Idaho Fish and Game Department has disputed tribal jurisdiction, especially for hunting by nontribal members on reservation lands owned by non-Indians. As a compromise, since 1985, we have established the same waterfowl hunting regulations on the reservation and in a surrounding off-reservation State zone. The regulations were requested by the Tribes and provided for different season dates than in the remainder of the State. We agreed to the season dates because they would provide additional protection to mallards and pintails. The State of Idaho concurred with the zoning arrangement. We have no objection to the State's use of this zone again in the 2015-16 hunting season, provided the duck and goose hunting season dates are the same as on the reservation.
In a proposal for the 2015-16 hunting season, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes request a continuous duck (including mergansers and coots) season, with the maximum number of days and the same daily bag and possession limits permitted for Pacific Flyway States under the final Federal frameworks. The Tribes propose a duck and coot season with, if the same number of hunting days is permitted as last year, an opening date of October 3, 2015, and a closing date of January 19, 2016. The Tribes anticipate harvest will be about 7,000 ducks.
The Tribes also request a continuous goose season with the maximum number of days and the same daily bag and possession limits permitted in Idaho under Federal frameworks. The Tribes propose that, if the same number of hunting days is permitted as in previous years, the season would have an opening date of October 3, 2015, and a closing date of January 19, 2016. The Tribes anticipate harvest will be about 5,000 geese.
The Tribes request a common snipe season with the maximum number of days and the same daily bag and possession limits permitted in Idaho under Federal frameworks. The Tribes propose that, if the same number of hunting days is permitted as in previous years, the season would have an opening date of October 3, 2015, and a closing date of January 19, 2016.
Nontribal hunters must comply with all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations in 50 CFR part 20 pertaining to shooting hours, use of steel shot, and manner of taking. Special regulations established by the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes also apply on the reservation.
We note that the requested regulations are nearly identical to those of last year, and we propose to approve them for the 2015-16 hunting season if the seasons' dates fall within the final Federal flyway frameworks (applies to nontribal hunters only).
Since 1996, the Service and the Point No Point Treaty Tribes, of which the Skokomish Tribe was one, have cooperated to establish special regulations for migratory bird hunting. The Tribes have been acting independently since 2005, and the Skokomish Tribe would like to establish migratory bird hunting regulations for tribal members for the 2015-16 season. The Tribe has a reservation on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State and is a successor to the signatories of the Treaty of Point No Point of 1855.
The Skokomish Tribe requests a duck and coot season from September 16, 2015, to February 28, 2016. The daily bag limit is seven ducks, including no more than two hen mallards, one pintail, one canvasback, and two redheads. The daily bag and possession limit on harlequin duck is one per season. The coot daily bag limit is 25. The possession limit is twice the daily bag limit, except as noted above.
For geese, the Tribe requests a season from September 16, 2015, to February 28, 2016. The daily bag limit is four, including no more than three light geese. The season on Aleutian Canada geese is closed. For brant, the Tribe proposes a season from November 1, 2015, to February 15, 2016, with a daily bag limit of two. The possession limit is twice the daily bag limit.
For mourning doves, band-tailed pigeon, and snipe, the Tribe requests a season from September 16, 2015, to February 28, 2016, with a daily bag limit of 10, 2, and 8, respectively. The possession limit is twice the daily bag limit.
All Tribal hunters authorized to hunt migratory birds are required to obtain a tribal hunting permit from the Skokomish Tribe pursuant to tribal law. Hunting hours would be from one-half hour before sunrise to sunset. Only steel, tungsten-iron, tungsten-polymer, tungsten-matrix, and tin shot are allowed for hunting waterfowl. It is unlawful to use or possess lead shot while hunting waterfowl.
The Tribe anticipates harvest to be fewer than 150 birds. The Skokomish Public Safety Office enforcement officers have the authority to enforce these migratory bird hunting regulations.
We propose to approve the Skokomish Tribe's 2015-16 migratory bird hunting season.
The Spokane Tribe of Indians wishes to establish waterfowl seasons on their reservation for its membership to access as an additional resource. An established waterfowl season on the reservation will allow access to a resource for members to continue practicing a subsistence lifestyle.
The Spokane Indian Reservation is located in northeastern Washington State. The reservation comprises approximately 157,000 acres. The boundaries of the Reservation are the Columbia River to the west, the Spokane River to the south (now Lake Roosevelt), Tshimikn Creek to the east, and the 48th Parallel as the north boundary. Tribal membership comprises approximately 2,300 enrolled Spokane Tribal Members.
These proposed regulations would allow Tribal Members, spouses of Spokane Tribal Members, and first-generation descendants of a Spokane Tribal Member with a tribal permit and Federal Waterfowl stamp an opportunity to utilize the reservation and ceded lands for waterfowl hunting. These regulations would also benefit tribal membership through access to this resource throughout Spokane Tribal ceded lands in eastern Washington. By Spokane Tribal Referendum, spouses of Spokane Tribal Members and children of Spokane Tribal Members not enrolled are allowed to harvest game animals within the Spokane Indian Reservation with the issuance of hunting permits.
For the 2015-16 season, the Tribe requests to establish duck seasons that would run from September 2, 2015, through January 31, 2016. The tribe is requesting the daily bag limit for ducks to be consistent with final Federal frameworks. The possession limit is twice the daily bag limit.
The Tribe proposes a season on geese starting September 2, 2015, and ending on January 31, 2016. The tribe is requesting the daily bag limit for geese to be consistent with final Federal
Based on the quantity of requests the Spokane Tribe of Indians has received, the tribe anticipates harvest levels for the 2015-16 season for both ducks and geese to be fewer than 100 total birds with goose harvest at fewer than 50. Hunter success will be monitored through mandatory harvest reports returned within 30 days of the season closure.
We propose to approve the Spokane Tribe's requested 2015-16 special migratory bird hunting regulations.
The Squaxin Island Tribe of Washington and the Service have cooperated since 1995, to establish special tribal migratory bird hunting regulations. These special regulations apply to tribal members on the Squaxin Island Reservation, located in western Washington near Olympia, and all lands within the traditional hunting grounds of the Squaxin Island Tribe.
For the 2015-16 season, we have yet to hear from the Squaxin Island Tribe. The Tribe usually requests to establish duck and coot seasons that would run from September 1, 2015, through January 15, 2016. The daily bag limit for ducks would be five per day and could include only one canvasback. The season on harlequin ducks is closed. For coots, the daily bag limit is 25. For snipe, the Tribe usually proposes that the season start on September 15, 2015, and end on January 15, 2016. The daily bag limit for snipe would be eight. For band-tailed pigeon, the Tribe usually proposes that the season start on September 1, 2015, and end on December 31, 2015. The daily bag limit would be five. The possession limit would be twice the daily bag limit.
The Tribe usually proposes a season on geese starting September 15, 2015, and ending on January 15, 2016. The daily bag limit for geese would be four, including no more than two snow geese. The season on Aleutian and cackling Canada geese would be closed. For brant, the Tribe usually proposes that the season start on September 1, 2015, and end on December 31, 2015. The daily bag limit for brant would be two. The possession limit would be twice the daily bag limit.
We propose to approve the Tribe's 2015-16 special migratory bird hunting regulations, upon receipt of their proposal.
The Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians and the Service have cooperated to establish special regulations for migratory game birds since 2001. For the 2015-16 season, the Tribe requests regulations to hunt all open and unclaimed lands under the Treaty of Point Elliott of January 22, 1855, including their main hunting grounds around Camano Island, Skagit Flats, and Port Susan to the border of the Tulalip Tribes Reservation. Ceded lands are located in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, and Kings Counties, and a portion of Pierce County, Washington. The Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians is a federally recognized Tribe and reserves the Treaty Right to hunt (
The Tribe proposes their duck (including mergansers and coot) and goose seasons run from October 1, 2015, to March 10, 2016. The daily bag limit on ducks (including sea ducks and mergansers) is 10. The daily bag limit for coot is 25. For geese, the daily bag limit is six. The season on brant is closed. Possession limits are totals of these three daily bag limits.
The Tribe proposes the snipe seasons run from October 1, 2015, to January 31, 2016. The daily bag limit for snipe is 10. Possession limits are three times the daily bag limit.
Harvest is regulated by a punch card system. Tribal members hunting on lands under this proposal will observe all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations found in 50 CFR part 20, which will be enforced by the Stillaguamish Tribal law enforcement. Tribal members are required to use steel shot or a nontoxic shot as required by Federal regulations.
The Tribe anticipates a total harvest of 200 ducks, 100 geese, 50 mergansers, 100 coots, and 100 snipe. Anticipated harvest needs include subsistence and ceremonial needs. Certain species may be closed to hunting for conservation purposes, and consideration for the needs of certain species will be addressed.
The Service proposes to approve the Stillaguamish Tribe's request for 2015-16 special migratory bird hunting regulations upon receipt of the proposal.
In 1996, the Service and the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community began cooperating to establish special regulations for migratory bird hunting. The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community is a federally recognized Indian Tribe consisting of the Swinomish, Lower Skagit, Samish, and Kikialous. The Swinomish Reservation was established by the Treaty of Point Elliott of January 22, 1855, and lies in the Puget Sound area north of Seattle, Washington.
For the 2015-16 season, the Tribal Community requests to establish a migratory bird hunting season on all areas that are open and unclaimed and consistent with the meaning of the treaty. The Tribal Community requests to establish duck, merganser, Canada goose, brant, and coot seasons opening on the earliest possible date allowed by the final Federal frameworks for the Pacific Flyway and closing 30 days after the State of Washington closes its season. On reservation, the Tribal Community requests to establish duck, merganser, Canada goose, brant, and coot seasons opening on the earliest possible date allowed by the final Federal frameworks for the Pacific Flyway and closing March 9, 2016. The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community requests double the daily bag and possession limits allowed by the State for each species, except for ceremonial permit which stipulate species and numbers for harvest.
The Community usually anticipates that the regulations will result in the harvest of approximately 600 ducks and 200 geese. The Swinomish utilize a report card and permit system to monitor harvest and will implement steps to limit harvest where conservation is needed. All tribal regulations will be enforced by tribal fish and game officers.
We propose to approve these 2015-16 special migratory bird hunting regulations.
The Tulalip Tribes are the successors in interest to the Tribes and bands signatory to the Treaty of Point Elliott of January 22, 1855. The Tulalip Tribes' government is located on the Tulalip Indian Reservation just north of the City of Everett in Snohomish County, Washington. The Tribes or individual tribal members own all of the land on the reservation, and they have full wildlife management authority. All lands within the boundaries of the Tulalip Tribes Reservation are closed to nonmember hunting unless opened by Tulalip Tribal regulations.
The Tribe proposes tribal hunting regulations for the 2015-16 season. Migratory waterfowl hunting by Tulalip
For geese, tribal members propose a season from September 3, 2015, through February 28, 2016. The goose daily bag and possession limits would be 7 and 14, respectively, except that the bag limits for brant, cackling Canada geese, and dusky Canada geese would be those established in accordance with final Federal frameworks.
All hunters on Tulalip Tribal lands are required to adhere to shooting hour regulations set at one-half hour before sunrise to sunset, special tribal permit requirements, and a number of other tribal regulations enforced by the Tribe. Each nontribal hunter 16 years of age and older hunting pursuant to Tulalip Tribes' Ordinance No. 67 must possess a valid Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp and a valid State of Washington Migratory Waterfowl Stamp. Each hunter must validate stamps by signing across the face.
Although the season length requested by the Tulalip Tribes appears to be quite liberal, harvest information indicates a total take by tribal and nontribal hunters of fewer than 1,000 ducks and 500 geese annually.
We propose to approve the Tulalip Tribe's request for 2015-16 special migratory bird hunting regulations.
The Upper Skagit Indian Tribe and the Service have cooperated to establish special regulations for migratory game birds since 2001. The Tribe has jurisdiction over lands within Skagit, Island, and Whatcom Counties, Washington. The Tribe issues tribal hunters a harvest report card that will be shared with the State of Washington.
For the 2015-16 season, the Tribe requests a duck season starting October 1, 2015, and ending February 28, 2016. The Tribe proposes a daily bag limit of 15 with a possession limit of 20. The Tribe requests a coot season starting October 1, 2015, and ending February 15, 2016. The coot daily bag limit is 20 with a possession limit of 30.
The Tribe proposes a goose season from October 1, 2015, to February 28, 2016, with a daily bag limit of 7 geese and a possession limit of 10. For brant, the Tribe proposes a season from November 1 to November 10, 2015, with a daily bag and possession limit of 2.
The Tribe proposes a mourning dove season between September 1 and December 31, 2015, with a daily bag limit of 12 and possession limit of 15.
The anticipated migratory bird harvest under this proposal would be 100 ducks, 5 geese, 2 brant, and 10 coots. Tribal members must have the tribal identification and tribal harvest report card on their person to hunt. Tribal members hunting on the Reservation will observe all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations found in 50 CFR part 20, except shooting hours would be 15 minutes before official sunrise to 15 minutes after official sunset.
We propose to approve the Tribe's 2015-16 special migratory bird hunting regulations.
The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head is a federally recognized Tribe located on the island of Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts. The Tribe has approximately 560 acres of land, which it manages for wildlife through its natural resources department. The Tribe also enforces its own wildlife laws and regulations through the natural resources department.
For the 2015-16 season, we have not yet heard from the Tribe. The Tribe usually proposes a duck season of October 14, 2015, through February 22, 2016. The Tribe usually proposes a daily bag limit of eight birds, which could include no more than four hen mallards, four mottled ducks, one fulvous whistling duck, four mergansers, three scaup, two hooded mergansers, three wood ducks, one canvasback, two redheads, two pintail, and four of all other species not listed. The season for harlequin ducks is usually closed. The Tribe usually proposes a teal (green-winged and blue) season of October 10, 2015, through February 22, 2016. A daily bag limit of six teal would be in addition to the daily bag limit for ducks.
For sea ducks, the Tribe usually proposes a season between October 7, 2015, and February 22, 2016, with a daily bag limit of seven, which could include no more than one hen eider and four of any one species unless otherwise noted above.
For Canada geese, the Tribe usually requests a season between September 4 and September 21, 2015, and October 28, 2015, and February 22, 2016, with a daily bag limit of 8 Canada geese. For snow geese, the tribe usually requests a season between September 4 to September 21, 2015, and November 25, 2015, to February 22, 2016, with a daily bag limit of 15 snow geese.
For woodcock, the Tribe usually proposes a season between October 10 and November 23, 2015, with a daily bag limit of three. For sora and Virginia rails, the Tribe usually requests a season of September 2, 2015, through November 10, 2015, with a daily bag limit of 5 sora and 10 Virginia rails. For snipe, the Tribe usually requests a season of September 2, 2015, through December 16, 2015, with a daily bag limit of 8.
Prior to 2012, the Tribe had 22 registered tribal hunters and estimates harvest to be no more than 15 geese, 25 mallards, 25 teal, 50 black ducks, and 50 of all other species combined. Tribal members hunting on the Reservation will observe all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations found in 50 CFR part 20. The Tribe requires hunters to register with the Harvest Information Program.
If we receive a proposal that matches the Tribe's usual request, we propose to approve those 2015-16 special migratory bird hunting regulations.
The White Earth Band of Ojibwe is a federally recognized tribe located in northwest Minnesota and encompasses all of Mahnomen County and parts of Becker and Clearwater Counties. The reservation employs conservation officers to enforce migratory bird regulations. The Tribe and the Service first cooperated to establish special tribal regulations in 1999.
For the 2015-16 migratory bird hunting season, the White Earth Band of Ojibwe requests a duck season to start September 12 and end December 15, 2015. For ducks, they request a daily bag limit of 10, including no more than 2 hen mallards, 1 pintail, and 1 canvasback. For mergansers, the Tribe proposes the season to start September 12 and end December 15, 2015. The
For coots, the Tribe proposes a September 1 through November 30, 2015, season with daily bag limits of 20 coots. For snipe, woodcock, rail, and mourning dove, the Tribe proposes a September 1 through November 30, 2015, season with daily bag limits of 10, 10, 25, and 25 respectively. Shooting hours are one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. Nontoxic shot is required.
Based on past harvest surveys, the Tribe anticipates harvest of 1,000 to 2,000 Canada geese and 1,000 to 1,500 ducks. The White Earth Reservation Tribal Council employs four full-time conservation officers to enforce migratory bird regulations.
We propose to approve the Tribe's 2015-16 special migratory bird hunting regulations.
The White Mountain Apache Tribe owns all reservation lands, and the Tribe has recognized full wildlife management authority. As in past years, the White Mountain Apache Tribe has requested regulations that are essentially unchanged from those agreed to since the 1997-98 hunting year.
The hunting zone for waterfowl is restricted and is described as: The length of the Black River west of the Bonito Creek and Black River confluence and the entire length of the Salt River forming the southern boundary of the reservation; the White River, extending from the Canyon Day Stockman Station to the Salt River; and all stock ponds located within Wildlife Management Units 4, 5, 6, and 7. Tanks located below the Mogollon Rim, within Wildlife Management Units 2 and 3, will be open to waterfowl hunting during the 2015-16 season. The length of the Black River east of the Black River/Bonito Creek confluence is closed to waterfowl hunting. All other waters of the reservation would be closed to waterfowl hunting for the 2015-16 season.
For nontribal and tribal hunters, the Tribe proposes a continuous duck, coot, merganser, gallinule, and moorhen hunting season, with an opening date of October 17, 2015, and a closing date of January 24, 2016. The Tribe proposes a separate pintail and canvasback season, with an opening date of October 17, 2015, and a closing date of November 29, 2015. The season on scaup is closed. The Tribe proposes a daily duck (including mergansers) bag limit of seven, which may include no more than two redheads, two pintail, seven mallards (including no more than two hen mallards), and one canvasback. The daily bag limit for coots, gallinules, and moorhens would be 25, singly or in the aggregate.
For geese, the Tribe proposes a season from October 17, 2015, through January 24, 2016. Hunting would be limited to Canada geese, and the daily bag limit would be three.
Season dates for band-tailed pigeons and mourning doves would run from September 1, and end September 15, 2015, in Wildlife Management Unit 10 and all areas south of Y-70 and Y-10 in Wildlife Management Unit 7, only. Proposed daily bag limits for band-tailed pigeons and mourning doves would be 3 and 10, respectively.
Possession limits for the above species are twice the daily bag limits. Shooting hours would be from one-half hour before sunrise to sunset. There would be no open season for sandhill cranes, rails, and snipe on the White Mountain Apache lands under this proposal.
A number of special regulations apply to tribal and nontribal hunters, which may be obtained from the White Mountain Apache Tribe Game and Fish Department.
We plan to approve the White Mountain Apache Tribe's requested 2015-16 special migratory bird hunting regulations.
The Yankton Sioux Tribe has yet to submit a waterfowl hunting proposal for the 2015-16 season. The Yankton Sioux tribal waterfowl hunting season usually would be open to both tribal members and nontribal hunters. The waterfowl hunting regulations would apply to tribal and trust lands within the external boundaries of the reservation.
For ducks (including mergansers) and coots, we expect the Yankton Sioux Tribe to, as usual, propose a season starting October 9, 2015, and running for the maximum amount of days allowed under the final Federal frameworks. Daily bag and possession limits would be six ducks, which may include no more than five mallards (no more than two hens), one canvasback (when the season is open), two redheads, three scaup, one pintail, or two wood ducks. The bag limit for mergansers would be five, which would include no more than one hooded merganser. The coot daily bag limit would be 15.
For geese, the Tribe will likely request a dark goose (Canada geese, brant, white-fronted geese) season starting October 29, 2015, and closing January 31, 2016. The daily bag limit would be three geese (including no more than one white-fronted goose or brant). Possession limits would be twice the daily bag limit.
For white geese, the proposed hunting season would start October 29, 2015, and run for the maximum amount of days allowed under the final Federal frameworks for the State of South Dakota. Daily bag and possession limits would equal the maximum allowed under Federal frameworks.
All hunters would have to be in possession of a valid tribal license while hunting on Yankton Sioux trust lands. Tribal and nontribal hunters must comply with all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations in 50 CFR part 20 pertaining to shooting hours and the manner of taking. Special regulations established by the Yankton Sioux Tribe also apply on the reservation.
During the 2005-06 hunting season, the Tribe reported that 90 nontribal hunters took 400 Canada geese, 75 light geese, and 90 ducks. Forty-five tribal members harvested fewer than 50 geese and 50 ducks.
If we receive a proposal that matches the Tribe's usual request, we propose to approve those 2015-16 special migratory bird hunting regulations.
The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever possible, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed regulations. Before promulgating final migratory game bird hunting regulations, we will consider all comments we receive. These comments, and any additional information we receive, may lead to final regulations that differ from these proposals.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the
We will post all comments in their entirety—including your personal identifying information—on
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
For each series of proposed rulemakings, we will establish specific comment periods. We will consider, but possibly may not respond in detail to, each comment. As in the past, we will summarize all comments we receive during the comment period and respond to them after the closing date in the preambles of any final rules.
Based on our most current data, we are affirming our required determinations made in the proposed rule; for descriptions of our actions to ensure compliance with the following statutes and Executive Orders, see our April 13, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR 19852):
• National Environmental Policy Act;
• Endangered Species Act;
• Regulatory Planning and Review;
• Regulatory Flexibility Act;
• Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act;
• Paperwork Reduction Act;
• Unfunded Mandates Reform Act;
• Executive Orders 12630, 12988, 13175, 13132, and 13211.
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 2015-16 hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by September 3, 2015 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by September 3, 2015 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725—17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
7 CFR 1980-E, in conjunction with 7 CFR 1942-A, and other regulations, is currently used only for making B&I Direct Loans. 7 CFR 1951-E is used for servicing B&I Direct and Community Facility loans. All reporting and recordkeeping burden estimates for making and servicing B&I Guaranteed Loans have been moved to the B&I Guaranteed Loan Program regulations, 7 CFR 4279-A and B and 4287-B. Consequently, only a fraction of the total reporting and recordkeeping burden for making and servicing B&I Direct Loans is reflected in this document.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are affirming our earlier determination that it was necessary to immediately amend hot water treatment schedule T102-a in the Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual to extend the applicability of the treatment to additional mango commodities. In a previous notice, we made available to the public for review and comment a treatment evaluation document that described the revised treatment schedule and explained why we have determined that it is effective at neutralizing certain target pests.
Effective August 4, 2015, we are affirming the addition to the Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual of the revised treatment described in the notice published at 80 FR 22702-22703 on April 23, 2015.
Dr. Inder P.S. Gadh, Senior Risk Manager—Treatments, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2018.
The regulations in 7 CFR chapter III are intended, among other things, to prevent the introduction or dissemination of plant pests and noxious weeds into or within the United States. Under the regulations, certain plants, fruits, vegetables, and other articles must be treated before they may be moved into the United States or interstate. The phytosanitary treatments regulations contained in 7 CFR part 305 (referred to below as the regulations) set out standards for treatments required in 7 CFR parts 301, 318, and 319 for fruits, vegetables, and other articles.
In § 305.2, paragraph (b) states that approved treatment schedules are set out in the Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) Treatment Manual.
• PPQ has determined that an approved treatment schedule is ineffective at neutralizing the targeted plant pest(s).
• PPQ has determined that, in order to neutralize the targeted plant pest(s), the treatment schedule must be administered using a different process than was previously used.
• PPQ has determined that a new treatment schedule is effective, based on efficacy data, and that ongoing trade in a commodity or commodities may be adversely impacted unless the new treatment schedule is approved for use.
• The use of a treatment schedule is no longer authorized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or by any other Federal entity.
In accordance with § 305.3(b), we published a notice
We solicited comments on the notice for 60 days ending on June 22, 2015. We received six comments by that date. They were from private citizens, exporters, industry groups, and representatives of State and foreign governments. The responses were in favor of the revised treatment schedule to extend the applicability of the treatment to additional mango commodities. Therefore, in accordance with the regulations in § 305.3(b)(3), we are affirming our revision of a hot water treatment schedule for mango to control certain pests, as described in the TED made available with the previous notice. The treatment schedule is numbered T102-a. The treatment schedule will be listed in the PPQ Treatment Manual, which is available as described in footnote 1 of this document.
7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice announces a fee of $250 to be charged for the 2016 tariff-rate quota (TRQ) year for each license issued to a person or firm by the Department of Agriculture authorizing the importation of certain dairy articles, which are subject to tariff-rate quotas set forth in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) of the United States.
August 4, 2015.
Abdelsalam El-Farra, Dairy Import Licensing Program, Import Policies and Export Reporting Division, STOP 1021, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-1021 or telephone at (202) 720-9439 or email at
The Dairy Tariff-Rate Import Quota Licensing Regulation promulgated by the Department of Agriculture and codified at 7 CFR 6.20-6.37 provides for the issuance of licenses to import certain dairy articles that are subject to TRQs set forth in the HTS. Those dairy articles may only be entered into the United States at the in-quota TRQ tariff-rates by or for the account of a person or firm to whom such licenses have been issued and only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the regulation.
Licenses are issued on a calendar year basis, and each license authorizes the license holder to import a specified quantity and type of dairy article from a specified country of origin. The use of such licenses is monitored by the Dairy Import Licensing Program, Import Policies and Export Reporting Division, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
The regulation at 7 CFR 6.33(a) provides that a fee will be charged for each license issued to a person or firm by the Licensing Authority in order to defray the Department of Agriculture's costs of administering the licensing system under this regulation.
The regulation at 7 CFR 6.33(a) also provides that the Licensing Authority will announce the annual fee for each license and that such fee will be set out in a notice to be published in the
Accordingly, notice is hereby given that the fee for each license issued to a person or firm for the 2016 calendar year, in accordance with 7 CFR 6.33, will be $250 per license.
Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Notice of availability.
On April 27, 2015, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) published an NOA in the
A copy of the final Programmatic EA and FONSI can be accessed on the Internet by clicking on the appropriate link at
NRCS expects most actions carried out with VPA-HIP funds to follow NRCS conservation practice standards and fall within existing categorical exclusions. Although VPA-HIP applicants that agree to follow NRCS conservation practice standards will receive preference for acceptance and funding, there is no requirement they do so. It is also possible some actions may not fall within a categorical exclusion. Therefore, NRCS decided to prepare a Programmatic EA to review the effects of activities that are likely to occur with VPA-HIP grants.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA.
Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact.
Pursuant to Section 102[2][c] of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations [40 CFR part 1500]; and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Regulations [7 CFR part 650]; the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the rehabilitation of Upper North River Watershed Dam No. 77, Augusta County, Virginia.
John A. Bricker, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1606 Santa Rosa Road, Suite 209, Richmond, Virginia 23229. Telephone (804) 287-1691, email
The environmental assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, John A. Bricker, State Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement is not needed for this project.
The project purpose is continued flood prevention. The planned works of improvement include upgrading an existing floodwater retarding structure.
The Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been forwarded to the various Federal, State, and local agencies and interested parties. A limited number of the FONSI are available to fill single copy requests at the above address. Basic data developed during the environmental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting John A. Bricker at the above number.
No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the
[This activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under 10.904, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention, and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires inter-government consultation with State and local officials].
Bureau of the Census, Commerce.
Notice of Determination and Request for Comment.
The Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau) publishes this notice to announce that it is planning to conduct the 2017 Economic Census. The Census Bureau also is requesting public comment on the 2017 Economic Census content. This collection will be fully electronic using a secure encrypted Internet data collection system called Centurion. The Economic Census is conducted at 5-year intervals (years ending in 2 and 7) and is the most comprehensive compilation of statistics about U.S. businesses and the economy. The granting of specific authority to conduct the program is Title 13, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 131, which authorizes and requires the Economic Census.
The Census Bureau will begin the electronic mailout for the 2017 Economic Census in the Fall of 2017,
Direct all written comments regarding the 2017 Economic Census to Kevin Deardorff, Chief, Economy Wide Statistics Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8K154, Washington, DC 20233; or Email [
Economy-Wide Statistics Division, U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Room 6K141, Washington, DC 20233-6700, by phone (800) 242-2184, or by email
Section 131 of Title 13 U.S.C. directs the Secretary [of Commerce] to “. . . take, compile, and publish censuses of manufactures, of mineral industries, and of other businesses, including the distributive trades, service establishments, and transportation (exclusive of means of transportation for which statistics are required by law to be filed with, and are compiled and published by, a designated regulatory body), in the year 1964, then in the year 1968, and every fifth year thereafter, and each such census shall relate to the year immediately preceding the taking thereof.”
This notice announces that the Census Bureau is preparing to conduct the 2017 Economic Census. The Economic Census is the U.S. Government's official 5-year measure of American Business and the economy, and has been taken periodically since 1810. The Economic Census is the most comprehensive source of information about American businesses from the national to the local level. These Economic Census data products provide uniquely detailed basic measures that are summarized by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) industry for the U.S., states, metropolitan areas, counties, economic places, and ZIP Code areas. Data include details on the product composition of industry sales, receipts, revenue, or shipments; and on a great variety of industry-specific subjects. Additionally, the Economic Census produces statistics about businesses in Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and it provides data on selected special-interest topics, including the characteristics of business owners, domestic freight shipments, and business expenses. Published data cover close to 1,000 industries, 8,000 goods and services, every state, the District of Columbia, over 3,000 counties and 15,000 cities and towns.
The Economic Census is a primary source of facts about the structure and functioning of the U.S. economy. Economic Census statistics are more complete, specific, and reliable than any other single set of economic information. It provides comprehensive, detailed, high quality, and authoritative statistics that meet the needs of government, businesses, policymakers, academic researchers, and the American public. The program's data products inform policies and programs that promote business vitality, job creation, and sustainable growth. Moreover, they provide the official measures of output for industries and geographic areas and serve much of the foundation for the National Income and Product Accounts, Gross Domestic Product estimates, and other composite measures of the Nation's economic performance. These data supply weights and benchmarks for indexes of industrial production, productivity, and prices; and provide benchmarks for other Federal statistical series. Some of these statistical series include current business surveys done by the Census Bureau, which are used by trade associations, business organizations, economic development agencies, and individual businesses to assess and improve business performance.
The 2017 Economic Census will be the first to be conducted completely by electronic collection (100 percent Internet Collection). The electronic instrument, Centurion, provides improved quality with automatic data checks and is context-sensitive to assist the data provider in identifying potential reporting problems before submission, thus reducing the need for follow-up. Centurion is Internet-based, eliminating the need for downloading software and increasing the integrity and confidentiality of the data. The Census Bureau will furnish usernames and passwords for the electronic instrument to the organizations included in the survey, and an image of the electronic instrument will be available on the 2017 Economic Census Web site once the census has launched.
The Census Bureau posted copies of the 2012 Economic Census forms on its Web site at:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) unless that collection of information displays a current valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The Census Bureau, through the proper established procedures, will be obtaining an OMB control number under the PRA as we get closer to launching the program in 2017.
I have, therefore, directed that the 2017 Economic Census be conducted for the purpose of collecting these data.
U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before October 5, 2015.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Robin Pennington, Census Bureau, HQ-4K065, Washington, DC 20233; (301) 763-8132 (or via email at
During the years preceding the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau will pursue its commitment to reduce the costs of conducting a decennial census, while maintaining our commitment to quality. A primary decennial census cost driver is collection of data from members of the public from which the Census Bureau received no reply via initially offered response options. Improving our methods for increasing the number of people who take advantage of self-response options (“Optimizing Self-Response”) and further refining the questionnaire content will help increase the efficiency and effectiveness of census operations and substantially reduce costs. Additionally, making our methods for enumerating households that do not initially respond (“Nonresponse Followup”) more efficient can contribute to a less costly census while maintaining high-quality results.
The Census Bureau will conduct a 2016 Census Test, with components designed to test new approaches or validate existing approaches and systems integration related to (1) Optimizing Self-Response, including contact strategies, language support, and questionnaire content; and (2) Nonresponse Followup, including administrative records usage, and technological and operational improvements.
The 2016 Census Test is designed to evaluate several strategies to optimize the rate at which the public self-responds to the census. A higher rate of self-response will mean fewer cases for the Nonresponse Followup operation, saving taxpayer money. Significant areas of continued testing are:
• Evaluation and refinement of our “Internet push” strategy, where we do not initially send paper questionnaires to households, but rather invite them to complete the questionnaire online. We will evaluate the number of online invitations necessary before sending a full paper questionnaire to an address.
• Updated and modernized household contact strategies to encourage self response, including text/short message service (SMS) communication and postcard reminders.
• Refinement of our non-English support for respondents with limited English proficiency, the inclusion of non-English language letters and/or brochures in mailings, and web response addresses (Uniform Resource Locators, or URLs) in various languages on the incoming envelope.
• Further evaluation of questionnaire content:
○ We will include testing of a combined race and Hispanic origin question that is similar to one the Census Bureau is using in the 2015 National Content Test. Based on results from the 2010 Race and Hispanic Origin Alternative Questionnaire Experiment (Compton, et. al. 2012), the 2016 Census Test provides an opportunity to further test a combined race and Hispanic origin question.
○ On the Internet instrument only, we will test a terminology change in the race and ethnicity question specific to the “Black and African American” category, by comparing the use of “American” to the abbreviated “Am.” This addresses a problem with this abbreviation related to software providing Section 508 compliance
○ For the relationship question, the 2016 Census Test will include testing new response categories for opposite sex and same sex husband/wife/spouse and unmarried partner. In addition, the Internet data collection instrument will also provide two versions of the relationship question, with one version eliminating the response categories associated with unrelated household members (“roomer or boarder” and “housemate or roommate”).
○ The Internet data collection instrument will also include various ways to collect and confirm the number of persons residing at an address. Respondents will see one of three screens about the existence of people on the roster: one that displays the residence rule and asks for the number of people in the household, one that asks for the number of people who live in the household but puts the residence rule in the help text, and one that asks if any other people live at the household with the residence rule in the help text. After the names of the roster members are collected, the respondent will then see one of two series of undercount questions: one series asks for additional people on two separate screens, and another series asks for additional people on only one screen. After the demographic items are collected, the respondent will then see overcount questions in one of three forms, depending on test panel. Some respondents will see seven topic-based questions that ask if anyone in the household stayed at a particular type of place. Some respondents who live in small households (that is, households with three or fewer people) will see one person-based question that asks if a specific person stayed in any of a number of places. Other respondents will see two household-level questions that first ask if anyone in the household stayed in another housing unit or if anyone in the household stayed in a group quarters. The quality of the final household roster created from these experimentally applied questions will be evaluated by a coverage reinterview conducted by telephone that will contain extensive probes about missed roster members or other places that people sometimes stay.
The 2016 Census Test will be instrumental to the Census Bureau in testing new implementation and management processes, the use of automated data collection tools, and approaches such as using administrative records and third party data to reduce the NRFU workload. This test allows us to refine our use of administrative records, technologies to support field data collection and management, and operational procedures.
• Administrative Records
• Continued evaluation of our plan to use administrative records and other third party data (such as from the Internal Revenue Service, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, United States Postal Service, etc.) to identify vacant housing units that do not require a field visit during the nonresponse follow-up operation. Historically, the costs to verify and follow up with these types of units have been significant
• Continued evaluation of our plan to use the “occupancy” status of administrative records sources to
• Supplemental mailings to housing units that have been removed from the NRFU operation, giving respondents an additional chance to respond to the 2016 Census Test before final disposition using administrative record source data.
• Technological Improvements:
• Evaluation of our refined operational control system and case assignment processes, including identifying efficiencies for field data collection, as well as automated assignments that are based on enumerator availability and other criteria.
• Continued testing of a software to record housing unit status, interview, and enumerations at nonresponding housing units for operational readiness, as well as the ability to deploy the software on mobile devices that are Census owned, personally owned, or provided as a service.
• Continued evaluation of automated training for field employees.
• The inclusion of additional language translations to our enumeration software. Previous versions of this software provided translations in Spanish only.
• Operational Procedures:
• Comparison of the effectiveness of data collection modes (in-field enumeration vs. centralized telephone contact) to conduct telephone follow up activities.
• Use of innovative survey methodologies for NRFU cases, including the continued testing of different stopping rules for enumerators (maximum visits before stopping work, etc.); further evaluation of in-person vs. phone contacts, and continued research on when and how to attempt to obtain proxy responses for a housing unit.
• Implementation of a refined field management structure, designed to lessen the number of supervisors required in the field for conducting the NRFU operation.
• Testing our re-interview operation, including the rules by which cases are selected for re-interview, the use of a handheld device to input re-interview data, and a re-designed approach to using call center staff to make the first attempt at re-interviewing each case, where appropriate. We will also test the use of paradata collected from our automated data collection instrument, such as the recorded Global Positioning System (GPS) location of field interviews and the length of time for interviews to be conducted, to help detect and deter falsification by enumerators.
The Census Bureau will conduct the 2016 Census Test concurrently in portions of Harris County, TX and Los Angeles County, CA. These locations offer particular characteristics that support the Census Bureau's research goals. Conducting the 2016 Census Test in urban areas will allow us to test our assignment routing strategies in densely populated areas and understand challenges to field enumeration. Both sites have populations that are linguistically diverse and provide an appropriate context to test our language and translation services. Lastly, both areas contain “hard to count” populations and areas with high vacancy rates that will allow us to test our follow-up activities with these populations in this environment.
The housing units in the selected areas included in the 2016 Census Test will be contacted by mail and invited to complete their questionnaire via the Internet. Internet self response contact methods include a letter, postcard, and text (either as an invitation or as reminders), a multi-lingual brochure (either with a letter or in the envelope with URL). We will also test optimal strategies for delivering mail materials, including paper questionnaires, to households who do not or cannot respond online.
We will continue to test our Non-ID processing methodology as another strategy for optimizing self-response. Non-ID Processing refers to address matching and geocoding for Census responses that lack a preassigned Census identification code. In the 2016 Census Test, we will continue to develop our capability to conduct real-time Non-ID processing. This test will allow us to interactively prompt a respondent (while they are still online filling out the form) for additional address and location information if the respondent's address cannot be matched to a Census ID or geocoded. A Non-ID respondent whose address cannot be matched to our address database will be prompted during his or her Internet self-response session to confirm the address information they provided while filling out the form, or to indicate the location of their address on an on-screen map. This test will allow us to better understand requirements related to scalability of planned systems and determine metrics for ongoing monitoring and evaluation. If the address match is not resolved during automated processing Census staff will attempt to manually match or geocode addresses. We estimate that about one percent of the overall Non-ID respondents will be contacted as part of the manual matching process. Additionally, we plan to test a mechanism for validating all Non-ID respondents through the use of administrative records. To further explore our methodology for validating Non-ID responses, a sample of Non-ID responses will be selected for re-contact. The re-contact is intended to validate and re-collect information from a respondent to confirm the existence of the address and the persons enumerated at that address. The re-contact may occur through centralized phone contacts or in-field enumeration.
If a household does not ultimately respond to the self-response portion of the test by a specified date, it is included in the universe for the NRFU portion of the test, during which enumerators will attempt to follow up with nonresponding households to collect data. The Census Bureau will test centralized phone contacts to nonresponding cases prior to sending cases to an enumerator in the field. In advance of the full deployment of enumerators following up with nonresponding households, a small number of the nonresponding cases may be subject to early followup to allow for live testing of systems, data collection applications, and field procedures.
The Census Bureau will continue to test our use of administrative records for the removal of vacant housing units from the NRFU universe and to determine rules for when we can stop making visit attempts to households, and refer to administrative record data instead. For each of these cases, we will test a supplemental mailout to any household that is removed from the NRFU workload in this way as a final attempt to generate a self-response.
The Census Bureau will conduct NRFU with a combination of Census-owned, enumerator-owned, and mobile devices provided as a service using the Census developed enumeration
A sample of cases that have been enumerated via Nonresponse Followup will be selected for reinterview. This operation is intended to help us pinpoint possible cases of enumerator falsification. Like the NRFU operation before it, NRFU-RI will use the Census Bureau's enumeration software on mobile devices (Census-owned, BYOD, and devices provided as a service). We will also test centralized phone contacts of reinterview cases before sending them to an enumerator in the field, providing potential cost savings.
Understanding the accuracy of administrative records usage to identify vacant addresses and for the household composition of occupied housing units will inform decisions associated with the design of the 2020 Census. The Census Bureau may conduct additional followup with cases to obtain the most accurate Census Day status of each housing unit. The intent is to revisit addresses where we find discrepancies between the NRFU results and administrative records information for the address. This mostly will include those addresses where information collected during NRFU conflicts with information we have from administrative records for that address.
Telephone questionnaire assistance will be available in languages other than English.
To evaluate the use of new contact strategies, enumeration methods, and efforts to reduce burden, the Census Bureau will conduct focus groups, comprised of various categories of respondents and non-respondents. These focus groups are intended to gather information about respondent perspectives. Participants will be asked about their experiences with the 2016 Census Test, including but not limited to: Their reactions and thoughts about being contacted by the Census Bureau by alternative methods, the perceived legitimacy of these contacts; opinions about Bring Your Own Device; and their opinions on the use of administrative records by the Census Bureau. Participants will also be asked about their general concerns with government collection, cyber security, and protection of confidential data. At the end of the focus groups, we may be asking participants for whom we have acquired additional data from a commercial third party to verify whether this information is accurate.
Nonresponse Followup Cases: 120,000 respondents.
Nonresponse Followup Quality Control Re-Interview Cases: 12,000 respondents.
Manual Non-ID Processing Cases requiring a phone call to the respondent: 400.
Validation of Non-ID responses: 5000.
Administrative Records Followup: 5000.
Focus Groups:
Focus Group Selection Contact: 288.
Focus Groups: 160 participants.
Total: 392,848 respondents.
Paper/Internet Responders: 10 minutes per response.
Nonresponse Followup Cases: 10 minutes per response.
Nonresponse Followup Quality Control Re-Interview Cases: 10 minutes per response.
Non-ID Manual Processing Cases: 5 minutes.
Non-ID Respondent Validation: 10 minutes per response.
Administrative Records Followup: 10 minutes per response.
Focus Groups:
Focus Group Selection Contact: 3 minutes per response.
Focus Groups: 120 minutes per response.
Self responders [Internet/Paper/Telephone]: 41,667 hours.
Nonresponse Followup Cases: 20,000 hours.
Nonresponse Followup Quality Control Re-Interview Cases: 2,000 hours.
Non-ID Manual Processing Cases: 33 hours.
Non-ID Respondent Validation: 834 hours.
Administrative Records Followup: 834 hours.
Focus Groups:
Focus Group Selection Contact: 16 hours.
Focus Groups: 320 hours.
Total: 65,704 hours.
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 (including hours and cost) 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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before October 5, 2015.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, or via email at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Christopher Stein, Chief, Services Surveys Branch BE-50 (SSB), Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; phone: (202) 606-9850; fax: (202) 606-5318; or via email at
The Quarterly Survey of Transactions in Selected Services and Intellectual Property with Foreign Persons (BE-125) is a survey that collects data from U.S. persons that engage in covered transactions with foreign persons in selected services or intellectual property. A U.S. person must report if it had sales of covered services or intellectual property to foreign persons that exceeded $6 million for the previous fiscal year, or are expected to exceed that amount during the current fiscal year, or if it had purchases of covered services or intellectual property from foreign persons that exceeded $4 million for the previous fiscal year, or are expected to exceed that amount during the current fiscal year.
The data are needed to monitor U.S. trade in services, to analyze the impact on the U.S. and foreign economies, to compile and improve the U.S. economic accounts, to support U.S. commercial policy on trade in services, to conduct trade promotion, and to improve the ability of U.S. businesses to identify and evaluate market opportunities. The data are used in estimating the services component of the U.S. international transactions accounts and national income and product accounts.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) is proposing minor additions and modifications to the current BE-125 survey. The effort to keep current reporting requirements generally unchanged is intended to minimize respondent burden while considering the needs of data users. Existing language in the instructions and definitions will be reviewed and adjusted as necessary to clarify survey requirements.
Form BE-125 is a quarterly report that must be filed within 45 days after the end of each fiscal quarter, or within 90 days after the close of the fiscal year. BEA offers its electronic filing option, the eFile system, for use in reporting on Form BE-125. For more information about eFile, go to
International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (Pub. L. 94-472, 22 U.S.C. 3101-3108, as amended).
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 (including hours and cost) 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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (ITA) is organizing an Executive-led Smart Cities Infrastructure Business Development Mission to India (New Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai, with an optional spin off site visit to Vizag) from February 8-12, 2016.
Today, India's cities account for approximately 60% of the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). By 2030, that share is expected to reach 75% and the urban labor force is expected to increase by nearly 200 million workers. The new Indian Government led by Prime Minister Modi assumed office in June 2014 with an overwhelming mandate to focus on economic development. To capture the popular imagination and motivate the people of India, the new government has proposed a dramatic nationwide program to build 100 smart cities. In practice this will mean a wide variety of major infrastructure projects across the country that will be funded by the central and state governments over the next few years along with private sector capital. Infrastructure needs in India are estimated to be in the $1.5-$2 trillion range. The recently launched initiative
In recognition of cutting-edge U.S. technologies, products and services, the Government of India is encouraging the U.S. Government (USG) and U.S. companies to take the lead in developing smart city projects in three major urban areas: Ajmer in the state of Rajasthan, Allahabad in the state of Uttar Pradesh, Vishakhapatnam (aka Vizag) in the state of Andhra Pradesh. With the support of the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, U.S. companies will be involved in planning and technical assistance for each of these cities. However, U.S. participation is not limited to these three cities. CS India, in partnership with the American Chamber of Commerce and other local commercial chambers, has been staging events throughout the country in cities with additional public and private smart city projects.
$4,000 for SME firms.
$4,500 for large firms.
Additional participants: $1,000 per person.
Additional fees for optional trip to Vizag:
SME firms that will be attending the optional Vizag trip will pay $4,100, Large firms that attend will pay $4,800.
The mission fee does not include any personal travel expenses such as lodging, most meals, local ground transportation, and air transportation from the U.S. to the mission sites, between mission sites, and return to the United States. Business visas may be required. Government fees and processing expenses to obtain such visas are also not included in the mission costs. However, the U.S. Department of Commerce will provide instructions to each participant on the procedures required to obtain necessary business visas.
Each applicant must submit a completed and signed mission application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the company's products or services primary market objectives, and goals for participation. If the U.S. Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may reject the application, request additional
Companies must provide certification of products or services originating from the United States or if manufactured/produced outside of the United States, the product/service is marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and has U.S. content representing at least 51% of the value of the finished good or service. In the case of a trade association or trade organization, the applicant must certify that, for each company to be represented by the trade association or trade organization, the products and services the represented company seeks to export are either produced in the United States or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least 51% U.S. content.
The following criteria will be evaluated in selecting participants:
• Relevance of the company's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented companies') business to the mission goals;
• Company's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented companies') market potential for business in India; and
• Provision of adequate information on the company's products and/or services, and communication of the company's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented companies') primary objectives.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is rescinding its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyester staple fiber (PSF) from Taiwan for the period of review (POR) May 1, 2014, through April 30, 2015.
Bryan Hansen at 202-482-3683 or Minoo Hatten at 202-482-1690, AD/CVD Operations Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On May 30, 2015, based on a timely request for review by Far Eastern New Century Corporation (FENC), an exporter of subject merchandise,
On July 21, 2015, FENC withdrew its request for an administrative review.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. FENC withdrew its request for review within the 90-day time limit. Because no other party requested a review, the Department is rescinding this administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PSF from Taiwan.
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of PSF from Taiwan during the POR at rates equal to the cash deposit rate of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice in the
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Jeff Pedersen or Thomas Martin, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-2769 or (202) 482-3936, respectively.
On December 7, 2012 the Department of Commerce (Department) published in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. All requesting parties withdrew their respective requests for an administrative review of the 46 companies or groups of companies listed in the Appendix within 90 days of the date of publication of
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(l)(i).
This notice serves as the only reminder to importers whose entries will be liquidated as a result of this rescission notice, of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's assumption that the reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of an open meeting.
The United States Manufacturing Council (Council) will hold the third meeting of the current members' term by teleconference on Wednesday, August 19, 2015. The Council was established in April 2004 to advise the Secretary of Commerce on matters relating to the U.S. manufacturing industry.
The purpose of the meeting is for Council members to review and deliberate on recommendations developed by the Workforce subcommittee looking at issues of improving the image of manufacturing as a career path and developing skilled workers for consideration by the Manufacturing Council. The agenda may change to accommodate Council business. The final agenda will be posted on the Department of Commerce Web site for the Council at
Wednesday, August 19, 2015, 12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m. The deadline for members of the public to register, including requests to make comments during the meetings and for auxiliary aids, or to submit written comments for dissemination prior to the meeting, is 5 p.m. EDT on August 4, 2015.
The meeting will be held by conference call. The call-in number and passcode will be provided by email to registrants. Requests to register (including to speak or for auxiliary aids) and any written comments should be submitted to: U.S. Manufacturing Council, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20230,
Archana Sahgal, the United States Manufacturing Council, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20230, telephone: 202-482-4501, email:
In addition, any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the Council's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to Archana Sahgal at the contact information indicated above. To be considered during the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on August 15, 2015, to ensure transmission to the Council prior to the meeting. Comments received after that date and time will be distributed to the members but may not be considered on the call. Copies of Council meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting.
International Trade Administration, DOC.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a meeting of the Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee (ETTAC).
The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, September 1, 2015, at 8:30 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
The meeting will be held in Room 1414 at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Herbert Clark Hoover Building, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Ms. Amy Kreps, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries (OEEI), International Trade Administration, Room 4053, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (
The meeting will take place from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. EDT. The general meeting is open to the public and time will be permitted for public comment from 3:00-3:30 p.m. EDT. Those interested in attending must provide notification by Friday, August 21, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. EDT, via the contact information provided above. Written comments concerning ETTAC affairs are welcome any time before or after the meeting. Minutes will be available within 30 days of this meeting.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before October 5, 2015.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to the attention of Vanda R. White, National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2140, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2140; phone: (301) 975-3592; email:
This is a request to extend the expiration date of this currently approved information collection.
This information is collected from all testing or calibration laboratories that apply for NVLAP accreditation. Applicants provide the minimum information necessary for NVLAP to evaluate the competency of laboratories to carry out specific tests or calibrations or types of tests or calibrations. The collection is mandated by 15 CFR 285.
Each new or renewal applicant laboratory electronically submits its application for NVLAP accreditation through a self-service, web-based portal called the “NVLAP Interactive Web System” (NIWS). This method of collection also gives applicant laboratories the ability to upload document files needed to support the application process and to maintain their own profile information.
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 (including hours and cost) 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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Submission for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; request for comments.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (Committee) is submitting to OMB for their review the collection of the Annual Representations and Certification Form as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The agency's 60-day notice informing the public of the intent to replace the existing annual certifications (Committee forms 403 and 404) with the Representations and Certifications form was published in the
Interested persons are invited to submit comments about the collection on or before August 31, 2015.
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, ATTN: Ms. Jasmeet K. Seehra, OMB Desk Officer, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the
Requests for copies of documents pertaining to the collection should be addressed to Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, ATTN: Louis Bartalot, Director of Compliance, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, VA 22202-4149 or emailed to
The Committee has two annual certification forms, one for nonprofit agencies serving people who are blind (Committee Form 403, OMB Control Number 3037-0001) and one for nonprofit agencies primarily serving people who have other severe disabilities (Committee Form 404, OMB
In response to the agency's 60-day notice published in the
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to the procurement list.
This action adds products and services to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington Virginia, 22202-4149.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
On 6/6/2014 (79 FR 32716-32718); 5/8/2015 (80 FR 26548-26549); 6/5/2015 (80 FR 32096-32097); and 6/19/2015 (80 FR 35320-35321), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products and services are added to the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to and deletions from the procurement list.
The Committee is proposing to add products and services to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products previously furnished by such agency.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following products and services are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
Paul C. McKain, Chief Executive Officer of PSD Industries, LLC, (“Petitioner”), requests that the Commission initiate rulemaking to determine that Vacuum Diffusion Technology is an anti-entrapment system under the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act (“VGBA”). The Commission invites written comments concerning the petition.
The Office of the Secretary must receive comments on the petition by October 5, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2015-0018, by any of the following methods:
Rocky Hammond, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD, 20814; telephone (301) 504-6833, email:
Section 1404(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the VGBA requires that each public pool and spa in the United States with a single main drain other than an unblockable drain be equipped, at a minimum, with one or more of the following anti-entrapment devices or systems: (I) Safety vacuum release system; (II) Suction-limiting vent system; (III) Gravity drainage system; (IV) Automatic pump shut-off system; (V) Drain disablement; or (VI) any other system determined by the Commission to be equally effective as, or better than, these systems at preventing or eliminating the risk of injury or death associated with pool drainage systems. 15 U.S.C. 8003(c)(1)(A)(ii). Petitioner submitted a petition to the Commission dated June 11, 2015, to initiate rulemaking to determine that the VDT is an anti-entrapment device or system under the VGBA. To include the VDT in the list of anti-entrapment devices or systems in the VGBA, the Commission must determine that the VDT is “equally effective as, or better than” the anti-entrapment devices and systems listed in section 1404(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the VGBA at preventing or eliminating the risk of injury or death associated with pool drainage systems.
Petitioner asserts that VDT can help prevent risks of entrapment as a backup layer of protection and serves the same purpose as a safety vacuum release system (“SVRS”). Petitioner defines VDT as “a system that removes the intense vacuum draw from the intake point of a pumping system by occluding the intake orifice from swimmers and diffusing the vacuum from a potential blockage immediately in multiple directions from the blockage.” According to Petitioner, “covering 50% of the Vacuum Diffusion Technology intake device should not raise the normal vacuum draw by more than .4” Hg.”
Petitioner states that changing technology necessitates new anti-entrapment safety technology. Petitioner provides that some states have mandated the use of variable speed pumps in pools, and, according to Petitioner, SVRSs do not function on variable speed pumps. Petitioner asserts that technicians have learned to bypass SVRSs.
Petitioner states that VDT is only effective when the drain cover is missing and acknowledges that VDT does not protect against full-body entrapment. Petitioner asserts, however, that the devices and systems listed in the VGBA have limitations, and that VDT protects against limb, hair, and mechanical entrapment and mitigates evisceration.
By this notice, the Commission seeks comments concerning this petition to classify VDT as an anti-entrapment system or device under the VGBA. Interested parties may obtain a copy of the petition by writing or calling the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-6833. The petition is also available at:
Wednesday August 12, 2015, 9 a.m.-11 a.m.
Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.
Commission Meeting—Open to the Public
Decisional Meeting: Electronic Filing of Certificates of Compliance—Pilot Program—Federal Register Notice
A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at
For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-7948.
Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Health Board will take place.
Defense Health Headquarters (DHHQ), Pavilion Salons B-C, 7700 Arlington Blvd., Falls Church, Virginia 22042 (escort required; see guidance in
The Executive Director of the Defense Health Board is Ms. Christine Bader, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, Virginia 22042, (703) 681-6653, Fax: (703) 681-9539,
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150, and in accordance
Additional information, including the agenda and electronic registration, is available at the DHB Web site,
The purpose of the meeting is to conduct a decision briefing for deliberation and provide progress updates on specific taskings before the DHB. In addition, the DHB will receive information briefings on current issues or lessons learned related to military operational programs, health policy, health research, disease/injury prevention, health promotion, and healthcare delivery.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and subject to availability of space, the DHB meeting is open to the public from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. on August 20, 2015. The DHB anticipates deliberating a decision briefing regarding Continuing Education for DoD Health Professionals. The DHB also anticipates receiving a progress update from the Neuro/Behavioral Health Subcommittee on Population Normative Values for Post-Concussive Computerized Neurocognitive Assessments. In addition, information briefings will be provided on activities at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, vector control in support of military operations, missions and accomplishments of U.S. Navy hospital ships, and the U.S. Navy medical response to the tsunami in Indonesia.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and subject to availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and is on a first-come basis. All members of the public who wish to attend the public meeting must contact Ms. Kendal Brown at the number listed in the section
Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact Ms. Kendal Brown at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.
Any member of the public wishing to provide comments to the DHB may do so in accordance with 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and the procedures described in this notice.
Individuals desiring to provide comments to the DHB may do so by submitting a written statement to the DHB Designated Federal Officer (DFO) (see
If the written statement is not received at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting, the DFO may choose to postpone consideration of the statement until the next open meeting.
The DFO will review all timely submissions with the DHB President and ensure they are provided to members of the DHB before the meeting that is subject to this notice. After reviewing the written comments, the President and the DFO may choose to invite the submitter to orally present their issue during an open portion of this meeting or at a future meeting. The DFO, in consultation with the DHB President, may allot time for members of the public to present their issues for review and discussion by the Defense Health Board.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy (DoN), after carefully weighing the strategic, operational, and environmental consequences of the proposed action, announces its decision to implement Alternative 1, the Navy's preferred alternative, as described in the Mariana Islands Training and Testing (MITT) Final Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS). Under Alternative 1, the Navy will be able to meet current and future DoN and DoD training and testing requirements, including the use of active sonar and explosives within the MITT Study Area. The MITT study area is composed of established sea-based (at-sea) ranges and land-based training areas on Guam and the Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands, and operating areas and special use airspace in the regions of the Mariana Islands that are part of the Mariana Islands Range Complex (MIRC). The Study Area also includes a transit corridor that connects the MIRC and the Hawaiian Islands Range Complex and pierside sonar maintenance and testing alongside Navy piers located in Inner Apra Harbor.
The complete text of the Record of Decision is available at
Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 3, 2015.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Daphne Garcia, 202-219-2024.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
This study consists of two experiments, each of which will examine the impact of a single change to the Pell grant eligibility criteria. The first experiment will relax the prohibition on receipt of Pell grants by students with a bachelors' degree. Individuals eligible for the first experiment must have a bachelor's degree, be unemployed or underemployed, and pursue a vocational training program up to one year in duration. The second experiment will reduce the minimum duration and intensity levels of programs that Pell grant recipients must participate in from 15 weeks with 600 minimum clock hours to 8 weeks with 150 minimum clock hours. Each experiment will operate through a set of PGE schools that provide education and training services that qualify as PGE programs.
Participants in both experiments will be randomly assigned to either (1) a treatment group, which will have expanded access to Pell grants; or (2) a control group, which will not have access. Within both experiments, the treatment group will be very similar to the control at the time of random assignment except for access to Pell grants. Subsequent differences in the employment and earnings outcomes between treatment and control group members can then be attributed to Pell grant access. The first experiment will involve roughly 28 PGE schools with an average of 25 students participating per school. The second experiment will involve roughly 40 PGE schools with an average of 100 participating students per school. The expected sample of both experiments combined is approximately 4,700 students. Data for this evaluation will come from participants' FAFSA applications, PGE school administrative records, and SSA earnings statements. The study participant enrollment period is expected to last from November 2012 to June 2016. A data extracts from FAFSA applications will occur in summer 2015, 2017, and 2018. Administrative data extracts from PGE schools will also occur summer 2015, 2017, and 2018.
Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), 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 September 3, 2015.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Sara Starke, 202-502-7688.
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 Energy, Office of Science.
Notice of Renewal.
Pursuant to Section 14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, App. 2, and Section 102-3.65(a), Title 41, Code of Federal Regulations, and following consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee's (BESAC) charter will be renewed for a two-year period.
The Committee will provide advice and recommendations to the Office of Science on the Basic Energy Sciences program.
Additionally, the renewal of the BESAC has been determined to be essential to conduct business of the Department of Energy and to be in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Department of Energy, by law and agreement. The Committee will continue to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the rules and regulations in implementation of that Act.
Dr. Harriet Kung at (301) 903-3081.
Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of orders.
The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy gives notice that during June 2015, it issued orders granting authority to import and export natural gas, to import and export liquefied natural gas and to vacate prior authority. These orders are summarized in the attached appendix and may be found on the FE Web site at
They are also available for inspection and copying in the Office of Fossil Energy, Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and Supply, Docket Room 3E-033, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9478. The Docket Room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. DOE.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC-914 (Cogeneration and Small Power Production—Tariff Filings).
Comments on the collection of information are due October 5, 2015.
You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC15-11-000) by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
In Orders Nos. 671 and 671-A,
FERC implemented the Congressional mandate of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) to establish criteria for new qualifying cogeneration facilities by: (1) Amending the exemptions available to qualifying facilities from the FPA and from PUHCA [resulting in the burden imposed by FERC-914, the subject of this statement]; (2) ensuring that these facilities are using their thermal output in a productive and beneficial manner; that the electrical, thermal, chemical and mechanical output of new qualifying cogeneration facilities is used fundamentally for industrial, commercial, residential or industrial purposes; and there is continuing progress in the development of efficient electric energy generating technology; (3) amending the FERC Form 556
* $72.00 per Hour = Average Cost per Response. The hourly cost figure comes from the FERC average salary of $149,489/year.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests is 30 days from the issuance of this notice by the Commission. All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at
Please include the project number(P-14447-004) on any comments, motions, or recommendations filed.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following land acquisition reports:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Fair Wind Power Partners, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 18, 2015.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the
Take notice that on July 28, 2015, pursuant to rule 207(a) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure and sections 366.3(d) and 366.4(b)(3) of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 385.207(a), 366.3(d), and 366.4(b)(3), ITC Grid Development LLC (ITC Grid), filed a petition for declaratory order (petition) seeking a Commission ruling: (1) That binding revenue requirement bids selected as the result of Commission-approved, Order No. 1000-compliant, and demonstrably competitive transmission project selection processes will be deemed just and reasonable when filed at the Commission as a stated rate pursuant to Federal Power Act (FPA) section 205; and (2) that such binding bids are entitled to protection under the
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Natchez Pipeline Project involving construction and operation of facilities by American Midstream, LLC (Midla) in Franklin, Catahoula, and Concordia Parishes, Louisiana, and Adams County, Mississippi. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before August 24, 2015.
If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on June 29, 2015, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP15-523-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
Midla provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP15-523-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Midla proposes to construct, own, maintain, and operate the Natchez Pipeline Project consisting of 51.97 miles of 12-inch-diameter pipeline traversing portions of Franklin, Catahoula, and Concordia Parishes, Louisiana and Adams County, Mississippi, pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and Section 2.1 of the Stipulation and Agreement (Settlement) approved in Docket Nos. RP14-638,
As part of the Commission Order of the Settlement, the Commission approved Midla to abandon about 370 miles of varying diameter pipeline along with associated laterals from the Desiard Compressor Station in Ouachita Parish, Louisiana to a point near Scottlandville in East Baton Rogue Parish, Louisiana, either in place, by removal, or by transfer, subject to certain conditions. Among the conditions, Midla would need to continue to serve customers with delivery points from Winnsboro, Louisiana to the Natchez, Mississippi area through the Natchez pipeline, which the Natchez Pipeline Project would accomplish. Once the Natchez pipeline is in service, Midla would be able to abandon its existing pipeline system.
The Natchez Pipeline Project would consist of the following facilities:
• 51.97 miles of 12-inch-diameter pipeline;
• 0.50 mile of 4-inch-diameter delivery lateral at milepost 46.83 in Concordia Parish to serve the City of Vidalia, Louisiana;
• 4 aboveground valve sites;
• 12 meter stations; and
• 2 pig launcher/receivers.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 516.55 acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipeline, which includes the pipeline permanent right-of-way, temporary workspaces, additional temporary workspaces, above-ground facilities, contractor yards, and access roads. Following construction, Midla would maintain about 193.68 acres for permanent operation of the project's pipeline, aboveground facilities and access roads; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses. About 41 miles (or 79 percent) of the proposed pipeline route parallels existing pipeline, utility, or road rights-of-way.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• land use;
• water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
• cultural resources;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• air quality and noise;
• endangered and threatened species;
• public safety; and
• cumulative impacts.
We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s) (SHPO), and to solicit their
We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and the environmental information provided by Midla. This preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis.
• Potential impacts on lands under the Conservation Reserve Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture;
• potential impacts on the Louisiana black bear; and
• crossing of the Mississippi River.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the “Document-less Intervention Guide” under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Demicks Lake Pipeline Project (Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by WBI Energy Transmission, Inc (WBI Energy) in McKenzie County, North Dakota. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before August 27, 2015.
If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on May 13, 2015, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. PF15-24-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (PF15-24-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
WBI Energy plans to construct and operate 22.7 miles of 24-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline and appurtenant facilities between a proposed non-jurisdictional gas plant, ONEOK Rockies Midstream LLC's (ONEOK) Demicks Lake Plant, located west of Keene, North Dakota and a tie-in along Northern Border Pipeline Company's (Northern Border) existing mainline located approximately 8 miles southeast of Watford City, North Dakota. The Project would provide approximately 221,500 Mmcf/d (million standard cubic feet per day) of natural gas transportation capacity to Northern Border's mainline, which would transport the gas to the midcontinent region of the United States. The maximum allowable operating pressure of the new pipeline would be 1,650 pounds per square inch gauge.
The Demicks Lake Pipeline Project would consist of the following facilities:
• 22.7 miles of 24-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline;
• a meter station located at milepost (MP) 22.7 at the site of ONEOK's Demicks Lake Plant;
• two pig launcher/receivers at MP 0.0 and MP 22.7; and
• one mid-point block valve located at approximately MP 10.7.
WBI Energy also proposes to construct a 3,300-foot-long, 16- to 24-inch-diameter tie across pipeline between the proposed 24-inch-diameter Demicks Lake pipeline and WBI Energy's existing 16-inch-diameter Garden Creek II pipeline just south of Highway 23. The tie across pipeline facilities would consist of a block valve on both of the Demicks Lake pipeline and the Garden Creek II pipeline, a pig launcher at both ends of the tie across pipeline, and a metering facility at one end of the tie across pipeline.
The general location of the Project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Construction of the planned facilities would disturb about 266 acres of land for the pipeline and aboveground facilities. Following construction, WBI Energy would maintain about 133 acres of land for permanent operation of the Project's facilities; the remaining land would be restored and revert to former uses. About 67 percent of the planned pipeline route parallels existing pipeline, utility, or road rights-of-way.
Construction of ONEOK's proposed Demicks Lake Plant is not subject to FERC jurisdiction. However, in the EA, we will provide available descriptions of the non-jurisdictional facilities and include them under our analysis of cumulative impacts. The plant would be located west of Keene, North Dakota. As proposed, the plant would be constructed on a plot of approximately 160 acres located in the NE
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EA/EIS we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• land use;
• water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
• cultural resources;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• air quality and noise;
• endangered and threatened species;
• public safety; and
• cumulative impacts.
We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
Although no formal application has been filed, we have already initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders
The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Directions for use of eLibrary are provided on page 6 under Additional Information. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned project.
Copies of the EA will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).
Once WBI Energy files its application with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission receives a formal application for the project.
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that on July 23, 2015, California Independent System Operator Corporation filed a compliance filing in response to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's March 20, 2014 Order to Show Cause.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
On July 16, 2015, the Town of Grand Lake, Colorado, filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed Grand Lake WTP Hydro Project would have an installed capacity of 20 kilowatts (kW), and would be located along an existing 12-inch-diameter raw water pipeline within the city's water treatment plant. The project would be located in the Town of Grand Lake, Colorado.
The proposed project would have a total installed capacity of 20 kW.
A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.
Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
Take notice that on July 23, 2015, New York Independent System Operator, Inc. filed a compliance filing in response to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) March 20, 2014 Order to Show Cause.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on July 14, 2015, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia), 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500, Houston, TX 77056, filed in Docket No. CP15-531-000, an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, seeking authorization to abandon by sale certain natural gas facilities located in various Counties in Ohio to Columbia Gas of Ohio. The facilities consist of 13.1 miles of pipeline, 594 measuring stations, 35 mainline consumer taps and appurtenances. In addition, Columbia further request that the Commission find that following abandonment by sale, the facilities will perform distribution activities and thus be exempt from the Commission's jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1(b) of the NGA, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Tyler R. Brown, Senior Counsel, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500, Houston, TX 77056, phone: (713) 386-3797 or email:
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
On March 24, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued in Docket No. CP15-91-000 a
The March 24, 2015 NOI announced that the FERC staff will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) to address the environmental impacts of the Loudon Expansion Project (Project). Please refer to the NOI for more information about the overall facilities proposed by East Tennessee in Tennessee, and FERC staff's EA process. The Commission will use the EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the Project is in the public convenience and necessity.
We
This Supplemental Notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this Project, including landowners along the originally proposed route (Route F) and new landowners that would be affected by the new proposed route (Route G-1) or the alternate routes (Alternate Routes B, G, and the Eastside Alternate Route).
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the Project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if the easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission will provide equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form or provided verbally. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Following original Route F until milepost (MP) 1.5, the new Proposed Route G-1 would then turn east, cross under Tennessee State Highway 72 and parallel it until MP 3.1 where it would meet and be collated with East Tennessee's existing Loudon-Lenoir City Lateral pipeline. Alternate Route G and the Eastside Alternate Route would follow similar paths but each route would be located slightly farther east, rejoining and paralleling the Loudon-Lenoir City Lateral pipeline at approximately MP 3.5. All three of these routes would cross Tellico Lake. Alternate Route B would start at the same location as all other routes, but would then proceed west of those routes, avoiding Lake Tellico completely, rejoining and paralleling the Loudon-Lenoir City Lateral pipeline at approximately MP 5.4.
Overview and aerial maps of the previously proposed route, newly proposed route, and the three alternate routes are included in Appendix 1.
We have identified several issues that we think deserve attention for our comparison of the new proposed route and three alternatives based on a review of the proposed facilities and the environmental information provided by East Tennessee. This preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis.
• Waterbodies;
• karst geology, including caves; and
• candidate and listed threatened or endangered species.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; commenters; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes landowners affected by the pipelines as currently proposed, as well as landowners that may be affected by the Kemblesville Loop Alternative Route 2. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed Project.
Copies of the completed EA will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of a CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (Appendix 2).
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site.
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Comment request.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting its information collection [FERC-552, Annual Report of Natural Gas Transactions.] to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission previously issued a Notice in the
Comments on the collection of information are due by September 3, 2015.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-0242, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. IC15-5-000, by either of the following methods:
• eFiling at Commission's Web site:
• Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
FERC-552 had its genesis in the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $478,652 [6,660 hours ÷ 2,080
The estimated annual cost of filing the FERC-552 per response is $719 [$478,652 ÷ 666 responses = $719/response].
Take notice that on July 23, 2015, ISO New England Inc. filed a compliance filing in response to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's March 20, 2014 Order to Show Cause.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
On October 31, 2012, Clean River Power MR-3, LLC, Clean River Power MR-1, LLC, Clean River Power MR-5, LLC, Clean River Power MR-2, LLC, Clean River Power MR-7, LLC, and Clean River Power MR-6, LLC, filed applications for original licenses to construct, operate, and maintain the 3-megawatt (MW) Beverly Lock and Dam Water Power Project No. 13404, 4-MW Devola Lock and Dam Water Power Project No. 13405, 4-MW Malta/McConnelsville Lock and Dam Water Power Project No. 13406, 5-MW Lowell Lock and Dam Water Power Project No. 13407, 3-MW Philo Lock and Dam Water Power Project No. 13408, and 4-MW Rokeby Lock and Dam Water Power Project No. 13411 (Muskingum River Projects), respectively. On January 14, 2014, the Commission issued a
The above applications will be processed according to the following revised procedural schedule.
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Aaron Liberty at (202) 502-6862, or by email at
Take notice that on July 14, 2015, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia), 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500, Houston, TX 77056, filed in Docket No. CP15-531-000, an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, seeking authorization to abandon by sale certain natural gas facilities located in various Counties in Pennsylvania to Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania. The facilities consist of 3.6 miles of pipeline, 213 measuring stations, 7 mainline consumer taps and appurtenances. In addition, Columbia further request that the Commission find that following abandonment by sale, the facilities will perform distribution activities and thus be exempt from the Commission's jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1(b) of the NGA, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Tyler R. Brown, Senior Counsel, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500, Houston, TX 77056, phone: (713) 386-3797 or email:
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Comment request.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting its information collection [FERC-576, Report of Service Interruptions] to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission previously issued a Notice in the
Comments on the collection of information are due by September 3, 2015.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-0004, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. IC15-8-000, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
Filings (in accordance with the provisions of section 4(d) of the NGA)
Respondents to the FERC-576 are encouraged to submit the reports by email to
A report required by 18 CFR 260.9(a)(1)(i) of damage to natural gas facilities resulting in loss of pipeline throughput or storage deliverability shall be reported to the Director of the Commission's Division of Pipeline Certificates at the earliest feasible time when pipeline throughput or storage deliverability has been restored.
In any instance in which an incident or damage report involving jurisdictional natural gas facilities is required by Department of Transportation (DOT) reporting requirements under the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, a copy of such report shall be submitted to the Director of the Commission's Division of Pipeline Certificates, within 30 days of the reportable incident.
If the Commission failed to collect these data, it would lose the ability to monitor and evaluate transactions, operations, and reliability of interstate pipelines and perform its regulatory functions. These reports are kept by the Commission Staff as non-public information and are not made part of the public record.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of data availability (NODA); request for public comment.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice that interstate ozone transport modeling and associated data and methods are available for public review and comment. These data and methods will be used to inform a rulemaking proposal that the EPA is developing and expects to release later this year to address interstate ozone transport for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). This notice also meets the EPA's expressed intent to update the air quality modeling data that were released on January 22, 2015, and to share the updated data with states and other stakeholders. The information available includes: (1) Emission inventories for 2011 and 2017, supporting data used to develop those emission inventories, methods and data used to process emission inventories into a form that can be used for air quality modeling; and (2) base year 2011 and projected 2017 ozone concentrations and projected 2017 ozone state contribution data at individual ozone monitoring sites based on air quality modeling, supporting data including 2009-2013 base period and 2017 projected ozone design values, and methods used to process air quality model outputs to calculate 2017 ozone concentrations and contributions at individual monitoring sites. A docket has been established to facilitate public review of the data and to track comments.
Comments must be received on or before September 23, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The
When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Identify the notification by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
2. Explain your comments, why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute data that reflect your requested changes.
3. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
4. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
5. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
For additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at
For questions on the emissions data and on how to submit comments on the emissions data and related methodologies, contact Alison Eyth, Air Quality Assessment Division, Environmental Protection Agency, C339-02, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; telephone number: (919)541-2478; fax number: (919)541-1903; email:
On January 22, 2015, the EPA issued a memo and preliminary air quality modeling data that would help states as
The 2011 and 2018 emissions inventory data used for the preliminary air quality modeling were released for public review on November 27, 2013 (78 FR 70935), and January 14, 2014 (79 FR 2437), respectively. Based in part on comments received from the public review process, the EPA updated the 2011 emissions inventory data, developed emissions inventory data for 2017, and used these data in air quality modeling to develop updated projections of future year ozone concentrations and contributions.
In the January 22, 2015 memo, the EPA expressed its intent to update the preliminary air quality modeling data and to share the updated data with states and other stakeholders. This notice meets this intent. Additionally, the EPA, together with its state partners, is assessing the next steps to address interstate air pollution transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS under the CAA. The EPA recognizes its backstop role to develop and promulgate federal implementation plans, as appropriate. We are planning to take this action, if necessary, by issuing a proposal for a federal rule later this year. This notice provides an opportunity to review and comment on the agency's ozone transport modeling data that EPA intends to use in this forthcoming proposal.
Using the updated emissions inventories, the EPA performed photochemical air quality modeling to project ozone concentrations at air quality monitoring sites to 2017, and to estimate state-by-state contributions to those 2017 concentrations. We then used the air quality modeling results to identify nonattainment or maintenance sites for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017, consistent with the CSAPR approach to identify such sites. We used the contribution information to quantify projected interstate contributions from emissions in each upwind state to ozone concentrations at each of the projected 2017 nonattainment and maintenance sites in downwind states.
The EPA's air quality modeling used the updated version of the 2011-based air quality modeling platform. This platform includes emissions for the 2011 base year and a 2017 future base case as well as meteorology for 2011. The 2011 meteorology was used in air quality model simulations for both 2011 and 2017. The 2011 and 2017 emissions data are described in more detail in Section III.
The EPA used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) for modeling the 2011 base year and 2017 future base case emissions scenarios to identify sites with projected nonattainment and maintenance problems in 2017. The air quality model runs were performed for a modeling domain that covers the 48 states in the contiguous U.S. along with adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico. The spatial resolution (
The ozone predictions from the 2011 and 2017 CAMx model runs were used to project measured ozone design values to 2017 following the approach described in the EPA's draft guidance for attainment demonstration modeling.
As noted above, we followed the CSAPR approach to identify sites with projected maintenance problems in 2017. As part of the approach for identifying sites with projected future maintenance problems, the highest (
The base period ambient and projected 2017 average and maximum design values at individual nonattainment sites and maintenance-only sites are provided in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
The EPA performed nationwide, state-level ozone source apportionment modeling using the CAMx Ozone Source Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability Analysis (OSAT/APCA) technique
• States—anthropogenic NO
• Biogenics—biogenic NO
• Boundary Concentrations—concentrations transported into the modeling domain;
• Tribes—the emissions from those tribal lands for which we have point source inventory data in the 2011 NEI (we did not model the contributions from individual tribes);
• Canada and Mexico—anthropogenic emissions from sources in the portions of Canada and Mexico included in the modeling domain (we did not model the contributions from Canada and Mexico separately);
• Fires—combined emissions from wild and prescribed fires; and
• Offshore—combined emissions from offshore marine vessels and offshore drilling platforms.
The CAMx OSAT/APCA model run was performed for the period May 1 through September 30 using the 2017 future base case emissions and 2011 meteorology for this time period. The hourly contributions
The average contribution metric is intended to provide a reasonable representation of the contribution from individual states to the projected 2017 design value, based on modeled transport patterns and other meteorological conditions generally associated with modeled high ozone concentrations in the vicinity of the monitoring site. An average contribution metric constructed in this manner is beneficial since the magnitude of the contributions is directly related to the magnitude of the design value at each site.
The resulting 2017 contributions from each tag to each monitoring site are provided in the AQM TSD. The largest contributions from each state to projected 2017 downwind nonattainment sites and to projected downwind maintenance-only sites are provided in Table 3.
In CSAPR, the EPA used a contribution screening threshold of 1 percent of the NAAQS to identify upwind states in the eastern U.S. that may significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment and/or maintenance problems and which warrant further analysis. The EPA will take comment on the appropriate threshold to be applied for purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the upcoming rulemaking proposal to address interstate ozone transport for that standard. The EPA is not proposing or taking comment on this threshold as part of this NODA.
The EPA is requesting comment on the components of the 2011 air quality modeling platform, the air quality model applications and model performance evaluation, and the projected 2017 ozone design value concentrations and contribution data. The EPA is also seeking comment on the methodology for calculating contributions at individual monitoring sites. The EPA encourages all states and sources to review and comment on the information provided in this NODA.
The EPA has placed key information related to the air quality modeling into the electronic docket for this notice (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500) which is available at
The EPA is requesting comment on the updated 2011 and 2017 emission
The EPA can most effectively use comments on emissions data that provide specific alternative values to those in the EPA data sets, and for which accompanying documentation supports the alternative values. Commenters should provide the alternative data at a level of detail appropriate to the data set into which it will be incorporated, thereby including all key fields needed to substitute the old data with the new. For example, any data provided as an alternative to the EPA's point source emissions data should include all key fields used to identify point source data such as facility, unit, release point, process, and pollutant, along with alternative emissions values. If a commenter were to provide a new set of county total emissions as an alternative to detailed point source emissions data, the EPA would not be able to use that new data. Commenters should also include documentation that describes methods for development of any alternative values and relevant references supporting the alternative approach.
Any alternative emission inventory or ancillary data provided should be compatible with the formats used by the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) modeling system version 3.6.5, which is used by the EPA to process emission inventories into a format that can be used for air quality modeling. Formats are defined in the SMOKE Version 3.6.5 User's Manual available from
Commenters wishing to comment on inventory projection methods should submit to the docket comments that describe an alternative approach to the existing methods, along with documentation describing why that method is an improvement over the existing method.
The released data include emission inventories that represent projected emissions into the atmosphere of criteria and some hazardous air pollutants in the years 2011 and 2017, additional ancillary data files that are used to convert the NEI emissions into a form that can be used for air quality modeling, and methods used to prepare the air quality model inputs and to develop projections of emissions for the year 2017. The platform includes emission inventories for sources at specific locations called point sources; emissions from fire events; and county-level emissions of onroad mobile sources, nonroad mobile sources, and nonpoint stationary sources.
The provided emission inventories are split into categories called modeling sectors. For example, facility-specific point emission sources are split into electric generating units (EGUs), oil and gas point sources, and other point sources. Nonpoint emission sources are split into agricultural ammonia sources, area fugitive dust sources, non-Category 3 commercial marine and locomotive sources, residential wood sources, oil and gas nonpoint sources, agricultural burning sources, and other nonpoint sources. Additional modeling sectors are onroad and nonroad mobile sources, Category 3 commercial marine sources, and emissions from wild and prescribed fires.
The emission inventories for the future year of 2017 have been developed using projection methods that are specific to the type of emission source. Future emissions are projected from the 2011 base case either by running models to estimate future year emissions from specific types of emission sources (
For some sectors, the same emissions are used in the base and future years, such as biogenic emissions, wild and prescribed fire emissions, and Canadian emissions. For all other sectors, rules and specific legal obligations that go into effect in the intervening years, along with changes in activity for the sector, are considered when possible. Documentation of the methods used for each sector is provided in the TSD
Emission projections for EGUs for 2017 were developed using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM). The National Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS) database contains the generation unit records used for the model plants that represent existing and planned/committed units in EPA modeling applications of IPM. The NEEDS database includes basic geographic, operating, air emissions, and other data on these generating units and is updated for the EPA's version 5.14 power sector modeling platform. The EGU emission projections included in this data release are reported in an air quality modeling-ready flat file taken from the EPA Base Case v.5.14, developed using IPM. The 2017 EGU emission projections in the flat file format, the corresponding NEEDS database, and user guides and documentation are available in the docket for this notice, and at
To project future emissions from onroad and nonroad mobile sources, the EPA uses the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) and the National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM), respectively. Development of the future year onroad and nonroad emissions requires a substantial amount of lead time and resources. The EPA had already prepared the emissions projections for 2018 when the attainment deadline for Moderate nonattainment areas was revised to July 2018 in the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule, as discussed above, effectively requiring the agency to adjust its projection year to 2017. Thus, for purposes of this NODA, the EPA calculated the 2017 emissions from mobile sources using post-modeling adjustments to 2018 emissions, but the agency anticipates that it will directly generate the mobile source emissions for 2017 that will be used in the air quality modeling for the final rule to address interstate transport for the 2008 ozone standard. The EPA obtained 2018 projections by running the MOVES and NMIM models using year-specific information about fuel mixtures, activity data, and the impacts of national and state-level rules and control programs. The input databases and future year activity data for onroad mobile sources are provided with the 2011v6.2 platform available at
For non-EGU point and nonpoint sources, projections of 2017 emissions were developed by starting with the 2011 emissions inventories and applying adjustments that represent the impact of national, state, and local rules coming into effect in the years 2012 through 2017, along with the impacts of planned shutdowns, the construction of new plants, specific information provided by states, and specific legal obligations resolving alleged environmental violations, such as consent decrees. Changes in activity are considered for sectors such as oil and gas, residential wood combustion, cement kilns, livestock, aircraft, commercial marine vessels and locomotives. Data files that include factors that represent the changes are provided, along with summaries that quantify the emission changes resulting from the projections at a state and national level.
The provided data include relevant emissions inventories for neighboring countries used in our modeling, specifically the 2010 emissions inventories for Canada and the 2008 and 2018 emissions inventories for Mexico. Canadian emissions for a future year were not available.
Ancillary data files used to allocate annual emissions to the hourly, gridded emissions of chemical species used by the air quality model are also provided. The types of ancillary data files include temporal profiles that allocate annual and monthly emissions down to days and hours, spatial surrogates that allocate county-level emissions onto the grid cells used by the AQM, and speciation profiles that allocate the pollutants in the NEI to the chemical species used by the air quality model. In addition, there are temporal, spatial, and speciation cross-reference files that map the emission sources in the emission inventories to the appropriate profiles based on their location, emissions source classification code (SCC), and, in some cases, the specific facility or unit. With the exception of some speciation profiles and temporal profiles for EGUs and mobile sources, the same ancillary data files are used to prepare the 2011 and 2017 emissions inventories for air quality modeling.
Information related to this section is located in the docket. However, as mentioned above, some of the emissions data files are too large to be directly uploaded into the electronic docket and/or are not in formats accepted by that docket. Therefore, the information placed in the electronic docket, associated detailed data, and summaries to help with interpretation of the data are available for public review with the 2011v6.2 platform available on the Emissions Modeling Clearinghouse on the EPA's Web site at
The emissions inventories, along with many of the ancillary files, are provided in the form of flat files that can be input to SMOKE. Flat files are comma-separated values-style text files with columns and rows that can be loaded into spreadsheet or database software. The columns of interest in the emission inventory files are specified in each subsection below. The EPA specifically requests comment on the following components of the provided emissions modeling inventories and ancillary files:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
To aid in the interpretation of the provided data files and how they relate to the aspects of the data on which the EPA is requesting comment, the EPA has provided a summary document in the docket that describes in more detail the provided data and summary files.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability.
This notice announces the availability of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Final 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan and EPA's 2014 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report. Section 304(m) of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to biennially publish a plan for new and revised effluent guidelines, after public notice and comment. The Plan identifies any new or existing industrial categories selected for effluent guidelines and provides a schedule. EPA typically publishes a preliminary plan upon which the public is invited to comment, and then publishes a final plan thereafter. EPA published the Preliminary 2014 Plan on September 16, 2014, and received public comment on it.
Mr. William F. Swietlik, Engineering and Analysis Division, Office of Water, 4303T, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC., 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-1129; fax number: (202) 566-1053; email address:
B.
1.
2.
3.
The outline of this notice follows.
This notice is published under the authority of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1251,
EPA prepared the
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is soliciting nominations for membership on The Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection and Control Advisory Committee. The committee provides advice and guidance to the Secretary, HHS, and the Director, CDC, regarding the early detection and control of breast and cervical cancer. The committee makes recommendations regarding national program goals and objectives; implementation strategies; program priorities, including surveillance, epidemiologic investigations, education and training, information dissemination, professional interactions and collaborations, and policy.
Nominations are being sought for individuals who have expertise and qualifications necessary to contribute to the accomplishments of the committee's objectives. The Secretary, HHS, acting through the Director, CDC, shall appoint to the advisory committee nominees with expertise in breast cancer, cervical cancer, medicine, public health, behavioral science, epidemiology, radiology, pathology, clinical medical care, health education, and surveillance. Two members may be representatives of the general public with personal experience in issues related to breast or cervical cancer early detection and control. Members may be invited to serve for up to four years.
The next cycle of selection of candidates will conclude in the Fall of 2015, for selection of potential nominees to replace members whose terms will end on March 31, 2016. Selection of members is based on candidates' qualifications to contribute to the accomplishment of BCCEDCAC objectives (
Candidates should submit the following items:
Current curriculum vitae or resume, including complete contact information (name, affiliation, mailing address, telephone numbers, fax number, email address)
A 150 word biography for the nominee;
At least one letter of recommendation from a person(s) not employed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Candidates may submit letter(s) from current HHS employees if they wish, but at least one letter must be submitted by a person not employed by HHS.
Nominations should be submitted ((postmarked or received)) by September 25, 2015.
•
•
Nominations may be submitted by the candidate or by the person/organization recommending the candidate.
Candidates invited to serve will be asked to submit the “Executive Branch Confidential Financial Disclosure Report, OGE 450” for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This form allows CDC to determine whether there is a conflict of interest between that person's public responsibilities as a Special Government Employee and private interests and activities, or the appearance of a lack of impartiality, as defined by Federal regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded at
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection extension for the CDC Work@Health® Program: Phase 2 Training and Technical Assistance Evaluation. The Work@Health® Program is a comprehensive workplace training program designed to improve employer knowledge and skills related to effective, science-based workplace health programs, and support the adoption of these programs in the workplace.
Written comments must be received on or before October 5, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0061 by any of the following methods:
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
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. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
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; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
CDC Work@Health® Program: Phase 2 Training and Technical Assistance Evaluation (OMB No. 0920-1006, exp. date 1/31/2016)—Extension—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
In the United States, chronic diseases, such as heart disease, obesity, and diabetes are among the leading causes of death and disability. Although chronic diseases are among the most common and costly health problems, they are also among the most preventable. Adopting healthy behaviors—such as eating nutritious foods, being physically active and avoiding tobacco use—can prevent the devastating effects and reduce the rates of these diseases.
Employers are recognizing the role they can play in creating healthy work environments and providing employees with opportunities to make healthy lifestyle choices. To support these efforts, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) developed the Work@Health® Program, a comprehensive worksite health training program which includes the development of a worksite health training curriculum and delivery of training to employers nationwide to improve the health of workers and their families. The Work@Health® Program is authorized by the Public Health Service Act and funded through the Prevention and Public Health Fund of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Work@Health® curriculum uses a problem-solving approach to improve employer knowledge and skills related to effective, science-based workplace health programs, and support the adoption of these programs in the workplace. Topics covered in the Work@Health® curriculum include principles, strategies, and tools for leadership engagement; how to make a business case for workplace health programs; how to assess the needs of organizations and individual employees; how to plan, implement, and evaluate sustainable workplace health programs; and how to partner with community organizations for additional support.
CDC began the full-scale implementation and evaluation of the Work@Health® Program in Winter/Spring 2014 (Work@Health® Program: Phase 2 Training and Technical Assistance Evaluation, OMB No. 0920-1006, exp. date 1/31/2016). During the initial two-year clearance period, the
CDC is requesting OMB approval to extend information collection for three years. There are no changes to information collection methods or instruments. The target number of new trainees is 1,200. There are minor changes to the burden table as a result of annualizing responses over a three-year period instead of a two-year period. The expansion of the Work@Health® program will foster the creation of far-reaching networks to help develop a sustainable worksite wellness network.
CDC will offer training in four models (formats): (1) A “Hands-on” instructor-led workshop model; (2) a self-paced “Online” model; (3) a combination or “Blended” model; and (4) a “Train-the-Trainer” model designed to prepare qualified individuals to train other employers using the Work@Health® curricula. Employers who complete the Hands-on, Online, and Blended model trainings will be invited to participate in peer learning networks and receive technical assistance from coaches to support their efforts to implement or enhance their workplace health programs. Technical assistance will also be provided to the individuals who complete the Train-the-Trainer model to help prepare them to provide the Work@Health® training to employers. Training graduates may be eligible for advanced technical assistance and training from CDC at a later date, through the expanded Work@Health® Advance Program.
To be eligible for the Hands-on, Online, and Blended model trainings, employers must have a minimum of 20 employees, a valid business license, and have been in business for at least one year. In addition, they must offer health insurance to their employees and have at least minimal workplace health program knowledge and experience. Applicants for the Train-the-Trainer model must have previous knowledge, training and experience with workplace health programs and an interest in becoming instructors for the Work@Health® program. They may be referred by employers, health departments, business coalitions, trade associations, or other organizations.
CDC will collect a combination of qualitative and quantitative data elements for analysis. These analyses will be supplemented with interview data collected for approximately six case studies. Outcome evaluation will therefore include a descriptive component as well as statistical models to assess the extent to which the program affected the target outcomes. Employers will be recruited to participate in the Work@Health® training and evaluation scheduled to begin in the Winter of 2016. The training models will be evaluated by assessing the participating employers' changes in readiness to develop or enhance a worksite health program; environmental elements of the physical worksite such as facilities; aggregate employee participation in programs and community partnership activities; and elements of worksite structure, practices, and policies related to health and safety. CDC will also assess trainees' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to worksite health and their reaction to the Work@Health® training, including their satisfaction with the training and opinions about whether it met their needs. CDC will not collect individual-level health data for this project.
Participation is voluntary and there are no costs to respondents other than their time.
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 September 3, 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 or, Email:
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.
The forms are to be used as worksheets for clinicians, medical staff, and the health department to compile information that would otherwise have been collected during the initial medical or dental exam. Once completed, the forms will be given to shelter staff for data entry into ORR's electronic data repository known as the `UAC Portal'. Data will be used to record UC health on admission and for case management of any identified illnesses/conditions.
Estimated Total Burden Hours: 7,209.
Estimated Total Annual Burden 3,564.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) intends to award cooperative agreements in fiscal year 2015 to approximately three organizations that will ensure national coverage. The awarded organization must provide comprehensive case management and referrals to qualified persons, either directly through its own organization or by partnering with other organizations through contracts or both.
Persons qualified for services under this grant are victims of a severe form of trafficking in persons who have received certification from HHS; potential victims of a severe form of trafficking who are actively seeking to achieve HHS certification; family members with derivative T visas, and minor dependent children of foreign
To help measure each grant project's performance and the success of the program in assisting participants, to assist grantees to assess and improve their projects over the course of the project period, and to fulfill instructions for a consolidated report to several committees of the House of Representatives, ACF proposes to collect information from TVAP grant project participants through the grantees on a monthly, quarterly, or annual basis, including participant demographics (age, sex, and country of origin), type of trafficking experienced (sex, labor, or both), immigration status during participation, types of health screening and medical services received, the names of the entities providing medical services, and the amount of money expended on each type of medical service provided.
This information will help ACF assess the project's performance in assisting victims of trafficking and will better enable TVAP grantees to meet the program objectives and to monitor and evaluate the quality of case management services provided by any subcontractors. ACF will also include aggregate information in reports to Congress to help inform strategies and policies to assist victims of human trafficking.
Respondents: Individual participants in TVAP projects.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in collaboration with the University of Maryland's Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation and the Critical Path Institute, is announcing a public workshop entitled “Evidentiary Considerations for Integration of Biomarkers in Drug Development.” The purpose of the meeting is to discuss current scientific approaches to biomarker development, acceptance, and utility in drug and biologic (hereafter referred to as therapeutic product) development programs.
The meeting will be held on August 21, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the University of Maryland, Pharmacy Hall, 20 North Pine St., Baltimore, MD 21201. For additional travel and hotel information, please refer to
Ann Anonsen, University of Maryland, Fischell Dept. of Bioengineering, 2207 Jeong H. Kim Bldg., College Park, MD 20742, 301-405-0285, FAX: 304-405-9953,
The purpose of this public workshop is to facilitate a unique opportunity for relevant stakeholders from industry, academia, and FDA to discuss biomarker development and provide a framework for evidentiary considerations required for biomarker qualification. The objective of the workshop is to discuss evidentiary considerations for use of clinical safety and enrichment biomarkers in drug development.
There is a registration fee to attend this meeting. The registration fee is charged to help defray the costs for facilities, materials, and food. Seats are limited, and registration will be on a first-come, first-served basis.
To register, please complete registration online at
Attendees are responsible for their own hotel accommodations. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Ann Anonsen (see
Interested persons may submit electronic comments to
The Indian Health Service (IHS) Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI) is accepting new and competing continuation cooperative agreement applications for the Community-Directed Grant Program. This program is authorized by Section 330C of the Public Health Service Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. 254c-3, as amended, and by the Snyder Act, 25 U.S.C. 13. This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) under 93.237.
Diabetes is a complex and costly chronic disease that requires tremendous long-term efforts to prevent and treat. Although diabetes is a nationwide public health problem, American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) people are disproportionately affected. In 2012, 15.9% of AI/AN people aged 20 years or older had diagnosed diabetes, compared to 7.6% of non-Hispanic white people [CDC, 2014 (
In response to the burgeoning diabetes epidemic among AI/AN people, Congress established the SDPI through the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. SDPI is a $150 million per year program that provides grants for diabetes treatment and prevention services. SDPI is administered by IHS, with programmatic oversight provided by the IHS Division of Diabetes Treatment and Prevention (Division of Diabetes).
Over 330 programs have received SDPI Community-Directed grants annually since 1998. A Congressional re-authorization in 2015 extended SDPI through FY 2017.
The purpose of this IHS cooperative agreement is to provide diabetes treatment and/or prevention activities and/or services (also referred to as “activities/services”) for AI/AN communities. Grantees will implement one SDPI Diabetes Best Practice (also referred to as “Best Practice”) and report data on its Required Key Measure. Grantees may also implement other activities/services based on diabetes-related community needs and develop an evaluation plan. Activities/services will be aimed at reducing the risk of diabetes in at-risk individuals, providing high quality care to those with diagnosed diabetes, and/or reducing the complications of diabetes.
Cooperative Agreement.
The total amount of funding identified for fiscal year (FY) 2016 is approximately $130.2 million. Individual award amounts are anticipated to be between $12,500 and $6.5 million with an average award amount of approximately $300,000.
The funding formula which determines the funds available to each IHS area has been determined through Tribal consultation. Within each area, grantee Tribes provide input on the formula which determines the amount of funding available for each successful applicant.
• Current SDPI Community-Directed grantees should budget for the same amount as they received in FY 2015. However, funding amounts may change. See the paragraph below for additional information.
• New SDPI Community-Directed grant applicants should apply for a $12,500 base amount.
The amount of funding available for competing and continuation awards issued under this announcement are subject to the availability of appropriations and budgetary priorities of the Agency. The IHS is under no obligation to make awards that are selected for funding under this announcement.
Approximately 325-450 awards will be issued under this program announcement.
January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020.
Cooperative agreements awarded by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are administered under the same policies as a grant. The funding agency (IHS) is required to have substantial programmatic involvement in the project during the entire award segment. Below is a detailed description of the level of involvement required for both IHS and the grantee. IHS will be responsible for activities listed under section A and the grantee will be responsible for activities listed under section B as stated:
1. IHS Division of Diabetes Treatment and Prevention (Division of Diabetes): The Division of Diabetes will provide general programmatic oversight, coordination, leadership, and resources. Detailed responsibilities include:
a. Communication and technical assistance
i. Maintain a Community-Directed grantee email list and provide updates and announcements via email.
ii. Maintain and update the Division of Diabetes Web site:
iii. Maintain and update SDPI Community-Directed Grant Program Web pages (
(1) Information sessions—Recorded webinars available to view on demand and provide a review of the programmatic Terms and Conditions and overview of application or report-specific resources.
(2) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)—Updated annually, this Web page provides answers to common questions about SDPI Community-Directed grants.
(3) Additional resources—Documents and links from the Division of Diabetes and the Division of Grants Management (DGM).
(4) New to SDPI—Provides information for new grantees and/or staff.
b. Provide Question and Answer (Q&A) Sessions: The Division of Diabetes will hold regular Q&A sessions regarding application and report processes via live webinars. Sessions will be held regularly one month before the due date for each application and report. These sessions will provide the following:
i. Review of programmatic Terms and Conditions.
ii. Overview of report or application instructions, templates and resources.
iii. Opportunity for attendees to ask questions.
c. Create and provide instructions and templates for the Semi-Annual and Annual Progress Reports.
d. Create and provide instructions and Project Narrative template(s) for continuation applications.
e. Maintain and update the SDPI Diabetes Best Practices.
f. Provide resources, tools, support, and training for facilities to conduct IHS Diabetes Care and Outcomes Audits.
g. Create and provide support for the SDPI Outcomes System (SOS) which grantees will use to track and report on Required Key Measure (RKM) data.
h. Establish SDPI grantee training requirements.
i. Provide or coordinate SDPI grantee training sessions and record them.
2. Area Diabetes Consultant (ADC): Diabetes expert located in each IHS area with the following responsibilities:
a. Serves as the project officer for the SDPI Community-Directed Grant Programs in their IHS area. The project officer is a federal program staff person who is responsible for managing and monitoring the progress of grantees.
b. Serves as a liaison between the SDPI grant programs, Division of Diabetes, and DGM.
c. Helps coordinate an extensive Indian health system diabetes network to facilitate information flow between local and national levels.
d. Provides diabetes training and resources to health care and wellness professionals and paraprofessionals in the Indian health system.
e. Works with the Division of Diabetes to translate and disseminate the latest scientific findings on diabetes treatment and prevention to AI/AN communities.
3. IHS Division of Grants Management: Official grants management office. Provides complete monitoring and oversight for all financial business management and administration for the life cycle of the grant award. First contact for all financial grants operations and policy requirements for compliance of the grant award terms and conditions. Contact office for the Grants Management Specialist (GMS), Grants Management Officer, Chief Grants Management Officer and Acting Director of Grants Management Operations and Policy. Works on a daily basis with all grants award recipients to provide guidance on all grants management questions and concerns.
All awardees (grantees) will need to meet the following requirements. All requirements, including these programmatic requirements, will also be provided as an attachment in the Notice of Award.
1. Diabetes Treatment and Prevention Activities and Services: Grantees must provide activities/services that:
a. Meet the purpose of this FOA (see section I above) which is to provide diabetes treatment and/or prevention services and activities/services for AI/AN communities.
b. Are targeted at reducing risk factors for diabetes and related conditions.
c. Address diabetes-related issues as identified in the grantee's needs assessment.
d. Implement a selected Best Practice and its RKM (see item 2 directly below).
e. Utilize SDPI funds as outlined in the grantee's Budget Narrative.
2. SDPI Diabetes Best Practices (Best Practices): The Best Practices (
3. SDPI Outcomes System (SOS): Data for the RKM will be reported using the new SOS. Grantees will enter results for the RKM for their selected Best Practice into this system at the start and end of the budget period, with the option to enter more frequently. The system will generate reports of these results to meet the SDPI outcomes reporting requirements. These results will be stored in the system and accessible to program staff as needed. Grantees will need to appoint at least one person in their program to get access to and add RKM data into the SOS.
4. IHS Diabetes Care and Outcomes Audit (Diabetes Audit): SDPI Community-Directed grantees are required to participate in the Annual Diabetes Audit (
5. Collaboration: Grantee must agree to:
a. Consult with and accept guidance from the Division of Diabetes, the DGM, and their ADC/Federal project officer(s) and/or designated assignee(s). In addition, sub-grantees must agree to consult with and accept guidance from their primary grantee.
b. Respond promptly to requests for information.
c. Attend required meetings and trainings.
d. Provide short presentations on their processes and successes, as requested.
e. Keep the above entities (see item a. above) informed of emerging issues, developments, and challenges that may affect the grantee's ability to comply with the grant Terms and Conditions and/or any requirements.
6. Program Coordinator: Grantees must have an officially approved (by the IHS project officer) program coordinator with the following qualifications:
a. Relevant health or wellness education and/or experience.
b. Experience with grant program management, including skills in program coordination, budgeting, reporting, and supervision of staff.
c. Working knowledge of diabetes.
The program coordinator will also be the primary email contact to entities listed in item B.5. above under “Collaboration.” All SDPI grant program staff should be routinely updated by the program coordinator with information and requirements related to their program's activities/services.
7. Hardware/software requirements: The hardware and software items listed below are required in order for grantees to access application and report materials, Web sites, and training forums relevant to this grant:
a. Desktop or laptop computer (recommended: Purchased in 2010 or later).
b. Internet access (recommended: High speed).
c. Internet browser software (recommended: Microsoft® Internet Explorer, version 10.0 or higher).
d. Adobe software compatibility for using Grants.gov. For more information:
e. Adobe Connect webinar capability. For more information:
In addition to the requirements above, it is recommended that grantees have Microsoft Office software, version 2010 or higher.
8. Semi-Annual Progress Report: Grantees must adhere to reporting
9. Required Trainings: Grantees must participate in SDPI required trainings offered by the Division of Diabetes. Training sessions will be primarily live webinars that will be recorded for those not able to attend the live sessions. Grantees will be expected to:
a. Participate in interactive discussion or chats during conference calls or webinars.
b. Share activities, tools, and results.
c. Share problems encountered and how barriers are overcome.
d. Keep track of participation whether live or recorded.
The SDPI grantee training requirements will be provided on the following Division of Diabetes Web page:
10. Grantees that propose sub-grantees: A sub-grantee is an entity that has an arrangement between a primary grantee institution and one or more participating institutions in support of a project. Primary grantee responsibilities include:
a. Providing oversight and coordination to ensure sub-grantees adhere to the grant requirements as listed in this cooperative agreement.
b. Serving as a liaison between the sub-grantees and the entities provided in item 5.a. above.
To be eligible for this “New/Competing Continuation Announcement” under this cooperative agreement announcement, applicants must be one of the following:
i. A Federally-recognized Indian Tribe as defined by 25 U.S.C. 1603(14), operating an Indian health program operated pursuant to a contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or compact with IHS pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), (Pub. L. 93-638).
ii. A Tribal organization as defined by 25 U.S.C. 1603(26), operating an Indian health program operated pursuant to a contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or compact with the IHS pursuant to the ISDEAA, (Pub. L. 93-638).
iii. An urban Indian organization, as defined by 25 U.S.C. 1603(29), operating a Title V urban Indian health program that currently has a grant or contract with the IHS under Title V of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, (Pub. L. 93-437). Applicants must provide proof of non-profit status with the application,
iv. Indian Health Service facilities: Under this announcement, only one SDPI Community-Directed diabetes grant will be awarded per entity. If a Tribe submits an application, their local IHS facility cannot apply; if the Tribe does not submit an application, the IHS facility can apply. Tribes that are awarded grant funds may sub-contract with local IHS facilities to provide specific clinical services. In this case, the Tribe would be the primary SDPI grantee and the Federal entity would have a sub-contract within the Tribe's SDPI grant.
Current SDPI Community-Directed grantees are eligible to apply for competing continuation funding under this announcement and must demonstrate that they have complied with previous terms and conditions of the SDPI grant in order to receive funding under this announcement.
The IHS does not require matching funds or cost sharing for grants or cooperative agreements.
If application budgets exceed the highest dollar amount outlined under the “Estimated Funds Available” section within this funding announcement, the application will be considered ineligible and will not be reviewed for further consideration. If deemed ineligible, IHS will not return the application. The applicant will be notified by email by the DGM of this decision.
These entities must submit documentation of support
1.
Official signed Tribal resolution(s) should be submitted along with the electronic application submission by the Application Deadline Date (see Key Dates). If an official signed Tribal resolution is not available by the Application Deadline Date, a draft Tribal resolution(s) should be submitted along with the electronic application submission by the Application Deadline Date. Then, the official signed Tribal resolution(s) must be received by the Signed Tribal Resolution(s) Due Date (see Key Dates); otherwise, the application will be considered incomplete and ineligible.
2.
These entities must submit a letter of support from their organization's board of directors.
These entities must submit a letter of support from their chief executive officer. In addition, letter(s) of support from Tribe(s) served by the IHS SDPI program are highly recommended but not required.
Documentation of support as required above must be submitted with the electronic application.
It is highly recommended that all application materials not submitted via grants.gov be sent by a delivery method that includes confirmation of receipt. Materials should be mailed to 801 Thompson Avenue, TMP Suite 360, Rockville, MD 20852 (attention to the assigned GMS, see section VII). Please contact the assigned GMS by telephone prior to the Review Date (see Key Dates) regarding material submission questions.
Organizations claiming non-profit status must also submit proof. A copy of the 501(c)(3) Certificate must be received with the application submission by the Application Deadline Date listed under the Key Dates section on the cover page of this announcement.
The IHS Diabetes Care and Outcomes Audit is a process to assess care and health outcomes for AI/AN people with diagnosed diabetes. IHS, Tribal, and urban Indian health care facilities nationwide participate in this process each year by auditing medical records for their patients with diabetes. Applicants that are able to must submit copies of their local facility's 2014 and 2015 Annual Diabetes Audit Reports.
1. Most applicants can obtain their 2014 and 2015 Annual Diabetes Audit Reports in one of following ways:
a. Via the WebAudit:
b. By requesting these Reports from their local facility.
c. By requesting these Reports from their ADC:
2. If the applicant is unable to obtain their local facility's 2014 and 2015 Annual Diabetes Audit Reports, they must provide an explanation in the Project Narrative (Part B).
The application package and detailed instructions for this announcement can be found at
Questions regarding the electronic application process may be directed to Mr. Paul Gettys at (301) 443-2114 or (301) 443-5204.
The applicant must include the Project Narrative as an attachment to the application package. Mandatory documents for all applicants include:
Acceptable forms of documentation include:
A sub-grantee is an entity that has an arrangement between a grantee institution and one or more participating institutions in support of a project.
A complete application package including all mandatory documents listed above must be completed, signed, and submitted to the primary grantee to be included in their application in response to this announcement. Sub-grantees cannot submit applications directly to Grants.gov.
The primary grantee's application must reflect the total budget for the entire cost of the project. Total budget for the sub-grantees should be accounted for under the contractual/consultant category.
A sub-contract is between two entities to provide services or supplies. Programs that propose sub-contracts with IHS facilities to provide clinical services must submit a separate budget for the sub-contract, but the grantee's application must reflect the total budget for the entire cost of the project.
While not required for this grant application, it is highly recommended that the grantee obtain a Memorandum of Agreement that is signed by the grantee, the IHS facility, the IHS area director, and the Tribal chairperson.
All Federal-wide public policies apply to organizations that receive IHS grants and cooperative agreements with exception of the Discrimination policy:
Be sure to answer succinctly all applicable questions in the Project Narrative, being mindful of the evaluation criteria (see section V.1). The Project Narrative will provide reviewers with critical information about the applicant's resources, capabilities, and proposed activities/services.
There are seven parts to the Project Narrative:
(1) Budget Line Items.
(2) Budget Justification that provides a brief justification for each budget item, including why it is necessary and relevant to the proposed project and how it supports project activities/services.
The Budget Narrative must include a line item budget with a justification for all expenditures identifying reasonable and allowable costs necessary to accomplish the goals and objectives as outlined in the Project Narrative. Budget should match the scope of work described in the Project Narrative. The page limitation should not exceed five pages.
The list of budget categories and items below is provided for ideas about what might be included in the budget. The applicant does not need to include all the categories and items below and may include others not listed. The budget is specific to the applicant's program, objectives, and activities/services. A sample Budget Narrative is also provided in Appendix 2.
For each position to be funded by the grant, including program coordinator and others, provide the information below. Include “in-kind” positions if applicable.
List the fringe rate for each position separately. DO NOT list a lump sum fringe benefit amount for all personnel combined.
May include partners, collaborators, and/or technical assistance consultants procured to help with project activities/services. Include direct costs and indirect costs for any subcontracts.
Major A&R exceeding $150,000 is not allowable under this project without prior approval from the program office.
Line item consists of facilities and administrative cost (include IDC agreement computation)
Applications must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on the application deadline date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement. Any application received after the application deadline will not be accepted for processing, nor will it be given further consideration for funding. Grants.gov will notify the applicant via email if the application is rejected.
If technical challenges arise and assistance is required with the electronic application process, contact Grants.gov Customer Support via email to
If the applicant needs to submit a paper application instead of submitting electronically through Grants.gov, a waiver must be requested. Prior approval must be requested and obtained from Ms. Tammy Bagley, Acting Director of DGM, (see Section IV.6 below for additional information). The waiver must: (1) Be documented in writing (emails are acceptable),
Executive Order 12372 requiring intergovernmental review is not applicable to this program.
All applications must be submitted electronically. Please use the
If the applicant receives a waiver to submit paper application documents, they must follow the rules and timelines that are noted above. The applicant must seek assistance at least ten days prior to the application deadline date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.
Applicants that do not adhere to the timelines for System for Award Management (SAM) and/or
Please be aware of the following:
All IHS applicants and grantee organizations are required to obtain a DUNS number and maintain an active registration in the SAM database. The DUNS number is a unique 9-digit identification number provided by D&B which uniquely identifies each entity. The DUNS number is site specific; therefore, each distinct performance site may be assigned a DUNS number. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy, and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, please access it through
All HHS recipients are required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, as amended (“Transparency Act”), to report information on subawards. Accordingly, all IHS grantees must notify potential first-tier subrecipients that no entity may receive a first-tier subaward unless the entity has provided its DUNS number to the prime grantee organization. This requirement ensures the use of a universal identifier to enhance the quality of information available to the public pursuant to the Transparency Act.
Organizations that were not registered with Central Contractor Registration and have not registered with SAM will need to obtain a DUNS number first and then access the SAM online registration through the SAM home page at
Additional information on implementing the Transparency Act, including the specific requirements for DUNS and SAM, can be found on the IHS Grants Management, Grants Policy Web site:
The evaluation criteria for reviewing and scoring the application are provided below. Weights assigned to each section are noted in parentheses. Ensure that this Project Narrative and other submitted application documents provide a clear and complete, but succinct, overview of your program. Anticipate that reviewers know nothing about your program and little about IHS and Tribal systems. Points will be assigned to each evaluation criteria adding up to a total of 100 points. A minimum score of 60 points is required for funding. Points are assigned as follows:
(i) Program Identifiers (Project Narrative Part A)
(1) Was the Project Narrative Template used?
(2) Was program identifier information adequately completed?
(3) Was an appropriate abstract provided?
(1) Did the applicant adequately describe the key diabetes-related health issues identified by their community/leadership?
(2) Were numbers provided for applicant's local user population and people with diagnosed diabetes?
(3) Was the 2014 Annual Diabetes Audit Report provided? If not, was an adequate statement included regarding why it was not provided?
(4) Was the 2015 Annual Diabetes Audit Report provided? If not, was an adequate statement included regarding why it was not provided?
(5) Did the applicant appropriately identify Diabetes Audit items (or diabetes-related issues if Audit Reports
(6) Did the applicant adequately describe how they will address the Diabetes Audit items or diabetes-related issues that need to be improved?
(7) Did the applicant adequately describe challenges?
(1) Did the applicant provide an adequate description of activities/services to improve the RKM?
(2) Are the activities/services proposed appropriate for the selected Best Practice and Target Group?
(3) Are the planned activities/services realistic given the constraints of timeframe, resources, and staff?
(1) Do activities/services address diabetes-related issues identified in the needs assessment in Part B?
(2) Are activities/services aimed at reducing risk factors for diabetes and/or related conditions?
(3) Are activities/services adequately described?
(4) Are the planned activities/services realistic given the constraints of timeframe, resources, and staff?
(1) Was one Best Practice selected?
(2) Was the number of patients/participants in the Target Group provided?
(3) Was the Target Group adequately described?
(4) Are the Target Group and number of patients/participants appropriate given the information the applicant provided in their needs assessment and program resources sections?
(1) Was an appropriate target group identified for each activity/service?
(2) Did the applicant specify how improvement and reduction in risk factors will be evaluated?
(1) Was a completed Key Contact form submitted for the program coordinator?
(2) Were appropriate biographical sketches, resumes, or curricula vitae provided for all key personnel?
(3) Was an appropriate organizational chart or description provided?
(4) Were appropriate Tribal Resolution(s) and/or Letter(s) of Support provided?
(5) Did the applicant identify at least one organization administrator or Tribal leader, other than the Program Coordinator, to support their SDPI program?
(6) Did the applicant describe how this leader will be involved with the SDPI Community-Directed grant program?
(7) Did the applicant provide appropriate and adequate information about key personnel in the Project Narrative?
(8) Did the applicant provide appropriate and adequate information about partnerships and collaborations in the Project Narrative?
(1) Did the applicant adequately complete this part of the Project Narrative?
(i) Does the budget match the scope of work described in the Project Narrative?
(ii) Was each line item adequately specified and justified?
(iii) Was the Budget Narrative within the five-page limit?
(iv) Do funding totals match between the SF-424A, budget line item, and justification?
(v) Is the budget reasonable and realistic?
• Work plan, logic model and/or time line for proposed objectives.
• Position descriptions for key staff.
• Resumes of key staff that reflect current duties.
• Consultant or contractor proposed scope of work and letter of commitment (if applicable).
• Current Indirect Cost Agreement.
• Organizational chart.
• Map of area identifying project location(s).
• Additional documents to support narrative (
Each application will be prescreened by DGM staff for eligibility and completeness as outlined in the funding announcement. Applications that meet the eligibility criteria shall be reviewed for merit by the ORC based on evaluation criteria in this funding announcement. The ORC could be composed of both Tribal and Federal reviewers appointed by the IHS program to review and make recommendations on these applications. The technical review process ensures selection of quality projects in a national competition for limited funding. Incomplete applications and applications that are non-responsive to the eligibility criteria will not be referred to the ORC. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Applicants may be notified by DGM, via email, to provide minor missing components (
To obtain a minimum score for funding by the ORC, applicants must address all program requirements and provide all required documentation.
The Notice of Award (NoA) is a legally binding document signed by the grants management officer and serves as the official notification of the grant award. The NoA will be initiated by the DGM in the following grant system, GrantSolutions (
Applicants who receive a score less than the recommended funding level for approval, (60 points), and are deemed to be disapproved by the ORC, will receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC outlining the strengths and weaknesses of the application submitted. The IHS program office will also provide additional contact information as needed to address questions and concerns.
Approved but unfunded applicants that met the minimum scoring range and were deemed by the ORC to be “Approved.” but were not funded due to lack of funding, will have their applications held by DGM for a period of one year. If additional funding becomes available during the course of FY 2016, the approved but unfunded application may be re-considered by the awarding program office for possible funding. The applicant will also receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC.
Cooperative agreements are administered in accordance with the following regulations, policies, and OMB cost principles:
A. The criteria as outlined in this program announcement.
B. Administrative Regulations for Grants:
• Uniform Administrative Requirements HHS Awards, located at 45 CFR Part 75.
C. Grants policy:
• HHS Grants Policy Statement, Revised 01/07.
D. Cost principles:
Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Cost Principles,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart E.
E. Audit requirements:
• Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Audit Requirements,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart F.
This section applies to all grant recipients that request reimbursement of indirect costs (IDC) in their grant application. In accordance with HHS Grants Policy Statement, Part II-27, IHS requires applicants to obtain a current IDC rate agreement prior to award. The rate agreement must be prepared in accordance with the applicable cost principles and guidance as provided by the cognizant agency or office. A current rate covers the applicable grant activities/services under the current award's budget period. If the current rate is not on file with the DGM at the time of award, the IDC portion of the budget will be restricted. The restrictions remain in place until the current rate is provided to the DGM.
Generally, IDC rates for IHS grantees are negotiated with the Division of Cost Allocation (DCA)
The grantee must submit required reports consistent with the applicable deadlines. Failure to submit required reports within the time allowed may result in suspension or termination of an active grant, withholding of additional awards for the project, or other enforcement actions such as withholding of payments or converting to the reimbursement method of payment. Continued failure to submit required reports may result in one or both of the following: (1) The imposition of special award provisions; and (2) the non-funding or non-award of other eligible projects or activities/services. This requirement applies whether the delinquency is attributable to the failure of the grantee organization or the individual responsible for preparation of the reports. Reports must be submitted electronically via GrantSolutions. Personnel responsible for submitting reports will be required to obtain a login and password for GrantSolutions. Please see the Agency Contacts list in section VII for the systems contact information.
The reporting requirements for this program are noted below.
Program progress reports are required semi-annually, once during the budget period with a due date to be determined by the Division of Diabetes and once within 90 days after the budget period ends. These reports must include a brief summary of progress to date for the period, or, if applicable, provide sound justification for the lack of progress, and other pertinent information as required. A final annual report must be submitted within 90 days of expiration of the budget/project period.
For SDPI Community-Directed grant programs, the following programmatic reports will be required:
i.
ii.
Refer to the SDPI Community-Directed Grant Program Web page (
Federal Financial Report FFR (SF-425), Cash Transaction Reports are due 30 days after the close of every calendar quarter to the Payment Management Services, HHS at:
Grantees are responsible and accountable for accurate information being reported on all required reports: The Progress Reports and Federal Financial Report.
This award may be subject to the Transparency Act sub-award and executive compensation reporting requirements of 2 CFR part 170.
The Transparency Act requires the OMB to establish a single searchable database, accessible to the public, with information on financial assistance awards made by Federal agencies. The Transparency Act also includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards.
IHS has implemented a Term of Award into all IHS Standard Terms and Conditions, NoAs and funding announcements regarding the FSRS reporting requirement. This IHS Term of Award is applicable to all IHS grant and cooperative agreements issued on or after October 1, 2010, with a $25,000
Telecommunication for the hearing impaired is available at: TTY (301) 443-6394.
1. Questions on the programmatic issues may be directed to:
• Applicant's Area Diabetes Consultant:
• IHS Division of Diabetes Treatment and Prevention, 801 Thompson Avenue, Suite 300, Rockville, MD 20852, Phone: 1-844-IHS-DDTP (1-844-447-3387), Fax: 301-594-6213, Email:
2. Questions on grants management and fiscal matters may be directed to DGM:
For IHS Areas: Albuquerque, Nashville, Navajo, Phoenix, and Tucson GMS: John Hoffman.
Email:
For IHS Areas: California, Great Plains, Oklahoma City, and Portland GMS: Cherron Smith.
Email:
For IHS Areas: Alaska, Bemidji, and Billings GMS: Patience Musikikongo.
Email:
For urban programs:
GMS: Pallop Chareonvootitam.
Email:
3. Questions on systems matters may be directed to: Paul Gettys, Grant Systems Coordinator, 801 Thompson Avenue, TMP Suite 360, Rockville, MD 20852, Phone: 301-443-2114; or the DGM main line 301-443-5204, Fax: 301-443-9602, Email:
The Public Health Service strongly encourages all cooperative agreement and contract recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and promote the non-use of all tobacco products. In addition, Pub. L. 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of the facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the HHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.
A full-time employee responsible for the implementation of the program goals as well as overseeing financial and grant application aspects of the agency.
A part-time employee responsible for providing assistance to the Program Coordinator.
A full-time employee working 8 hours per week on this grant providing transportation services and in-home health care to clients.
A part-time employee works 6 hours per week in the ADAPT/Mental Health Program providing counseling and workshops to clients.
Fringe benefits are calculated at 35% for both salaried and hourly employees. Fringe is composed of health, dental, life and vision insurance (20%), FICA/Medicare (7.65%), worker's compensation (1.10%), State
Program Coordinator: $14,000.
Administrative Assistant: $2,230.59.
CAN/Transporter/Homemaker: $2293.20.
Mental Health Coordinator: $2019.11.
Needed by our Diabetes Educator, Exercise Specialist, and Medical Director in order to access and update information on client's records. (2 × $1,500.00 = $3,000.00).
Elliptical cross trainer equipment (creates less impact on the knees), body fat analyzer, 8 dumbbell weights, 4 exercise balls, 4 exercise mats, step stretch, adjustable bench, bow flex plates kit, 2 dance pads, ball stacker set, and exercise video. Total for all exercise equipment is $3,300.00.
This type of computer is needed to be used in conjunction with the LCD projector that will be used by the Diabetes Educator for presentations. Cost is $1,500.00.
This equipment will be used by the Diabetes Educator for presentations. Cost is $1,200.00.
Various printed literature, books, videos, pamphlets, pens, bottled water, little promotional items will be needed to hand out at various health fairs, events, and to various groups to educate and promote health. Funds allocated are $3,000.00.
General office supplies are essential in order to properly maintain client records, financial records, and all reporting requirements. General office supplies include file folders, labels, writing pads, pens, paper clips, toner, etc. $1,200.00 will be included in this budget.
An allocation of $200.00 has been made towards teaching tools that will be used by the Diabetes Educator during the monthly wellness classes.
An allocation has been made for purchasing medical supplies for our clinic such as alcohol wipes, strips for glucometers, paper sheets, gloves, gowns, etc., in the amount of $3,000.00.
An independent contractor to perform payroll, accounts payable, financial and grant reporting, and budgetary duties.
A medical doctor is contracted to provide medical care to our clients with diabetes.
A Registered Dietitian/diabetes educator is contracted to provide diabetes related meal planning and instruction and facilitate one-on-one consultation with clients.
An exercise specialist is contracted to conduct and monitor the exercise program necessary for each client.
High Performance, high volume printer/scanner/copier to produce materials for diabetes wellness classes. $9,000.00
This program rents two office locations for a total cost of $83,220.00 per year. Special Diabetes grant program will cover $20,805.00 which is 25% of the rent cost.
This program will cover 25% of the total utility cost of $16,000.00 per year.
The Diabetes Program postage is estimated at $500.00.
This program currently has eight telephone lines at two separate offices as well as pager service and a toll-free number for clients. Diabetes Program will cover $2,611.00 of this expense which is 25% of the annual cost of $10,445.00.
An annual audit is conducted for this program's financial statements. Funding agencies require audit financial statements of grant funds. Diabetes will cover $2,500.00 of audit expenses which is 25% of the $10,000.00 proposal.
A computer consultant is needed to fix computer problems. $200.00 per month × 12 mos. = $2,400.00 will cover the expenses.
General liability insurance is required to protect the organization against fire and property damage. Diabetes portion of this expense is $1,593.00.
Office cleanings are required to keep the agency clean. Diabetes will cover 20% of the contract cost of $8,400.00 = $1,680.00.
This program stores its records in a storage facility. Diabetes grant will fund $240.00 of this cost.
A special handling fee for biohazard disposal will cost $154.00 for this program.
Newspaper advertising will be used to promote Diabetes events. Three (3) ads × $670.00 = $2,010.00
The most recent Indirect Rate Cost Agreement was approved by the Department of the Interior on June 16, 2014. A copy of this agreement is attached separately in the application. The Indirect Rate Cost Agreement for FY2015 will be negotiated after completion of the FY2014 Single Audit.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of meetings of the National Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Advisory Council.
The meetings will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.
Licensing information and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by writing to the indicated licensing contact at the Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, Maryland 20852-3804; telephone: 301-496-7057; fax: 301-402-0220. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive copies of the patent applications.
Technology descriptions follow.
Also available for licensing are hybrid INF-alpha nucleic acids encoding the hybrid polypeptides as well as cells, vectors, pharmaceutical compositions with these nucleic acid sequences.
• Treatment of anemia caused by chronic diseases, chemotherapy, or radiation.
• Anemia patients who do not respond to erythropoietin.
• Polycythemia treatment.
• Enhanced transduction activity.
• Reduced the potential for being neutralized by preexisting antibodies.
• E-175-2015: US 62/160,552.
• E-736-2013: PCT/US14/59825.
• E-142-2011 family: PCT/US12/34268, CA, EP and US.
• E-087-2011 family: PCT/US12/33556, EP and US.
• E-232-2011: US 14/428,929.
• E-194-2010: US 8,808,684.
• E-179-2005: US 8,283,151.
• E-227-2004: US 7,407,801.
• E-329-2003 family: US 8,137,960, US 8,685,722.
• E-105-2003: US 8,927,269.
• E-308-2001: US 7,419,817.
• E-071-2000: US 6,468,524.
• E-127-1998 family: US 6,984,517, AU, CA, EP, and JP.
• High gene transfer activity in a number of cell types including salivary gland cells, liver cells, and different types of neurons (
• As a gene transfer vector for cells that are not efficiently targeted by other vector.
• E-097-2015: US 62/143,524.
• E-736-2013: PCT/US14/59825.
• E-142-2011 family: PCT/US12/34268, CA, EP and US.
• E-087-2011 family: PCT/US12/33556, EP and US.
• E-232-2011: US 14/428,929.
• E-194-2010: US 8,808,684.
• E-179-2005: US 8,283,151.
• E-227-2004: US 7,407,801.
• E-329-2003 family: US 8,137,960, US 8,685,722.
• E-105-2003: US 8,927,269.
• E-308-2001: US 7,419,817.
• E-071-2000: US 6,468,524.
• E-127-1998 family: US 6,984,517, AU, CA, EP, and JP.
• To study the molecular mechanisms of bone formation and osteodifferentiation.
• To study the patho/physiology of tissues that express WISP1, including cartilage during osteoarthritis, healing skin, and other soft tissues including lung, pancreas, and heart.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Environmental Health Sciences Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Advisory Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The open session will be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting Web site (
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Each year, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is required by the Write-Your-Own (WYO) Program Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement (Arrangement) to notify private insurance companies (Companies) and to make available to the Companies the terms for subscription or re-subscription to the Arrangement. In keeping with that requirement, this notice provides the terms to the Companies to subscribe or re-subscribe to the Arrangement.
Lloyd A. Hake, Division Director, Risk Insurance, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, 1800 South Bell Street, Room 529, Arlington, VA 20598-3020, 202-646-3428 (phone), 202-646-7970 (facsimile), or
Under the Write-Your-Own (WYO) Program Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement (Arrangement), 79 (as of April 28, 2015) private sector property insurers sell flood insurance policies and adjust flood insurance claims under their own names based on an Arrangement with the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration (FIMA) published at 44 CFR part 62, Appendix A.
The WYO insurers retain an expense allowance and remit the remaining premium to the Federal Government. The WYO insurers pay flood losses and pay loss adjustment expenses based on a fee schedule through the regulated access of federal funds. In addition, under certain circumstances, reimbursement for litigation costs, including court costs, attorney fees, judgments, and settlements, are paid by FEMA based on documentation submitted by the WYO insurers.
The complete Arrangement is published in 44 CFR part 62, Appendix A. Each year, FEMA is required to publish in the
Signatory Companies should remain aware that all requirements of the Arrangement, including, but not limited to, financial accounting in issues involving all transactions, must be met. As set forth in Article II.A.1. of Appendix A to Part 62—Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration, Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement, the Company is responsible for meeting all fiduciary responsibilities for control and disbursement of funds in connection with policy administration. This includes ensuring that all accounting for
The Company is responsible for ensuring that all activities meet the requirements of this Arrangement and of the NFIP Financial Control Plan, 44 CFR part 62, Appendix B. The NFIP WYO Standards Committee may take remedial action in the event any such conduct is not corrected.
FEMA encourages all private insurance companies wishing to participate in the WYO Program for FY 2016 to contact the NFIP at
FEMA will send a copy of the offer for the FY 2016 Arrangement, together with related materials and submission instructions, to all private insurance companies successfully evaluated by the NFIP. If FEMA, after conducting its evaluation, chooses not to renew a Company's participation, FEMA, at its option, may require the continued performance of all or selected elements of the FY 2015 Arrangement for a period required for orderly transfer or cessation of the business and settlement of accounts, not to exceed 18 months, 44 CFR part 62, Appendix A, Article V.C. All evaluations, whether successful or unsuccessful, will inform both an overall assessment of the WYO Program and any potential changes FEMA may consider regarding the Arrangement in future fiscal years.
Any private insurance company with questions may contact FEMA in writing: DHS/FEMA, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Attn: Lloyd A. Hake, Division Director, Risk Insurance, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, 1800 South Bell Street, Room 529, Arlington, VA 20598-3020, 202-646-3428 (phone), 202-646-7970 (facsimile), or
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until October 5, 2015.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0078 in the subject box, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2008-0007. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
(3)
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 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). 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:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(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)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
60-Day notice.
DHS, USCIS invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until October 5, 2015.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0096 in the subject box, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2006-0013. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
(3)
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(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)
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that under the authority of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Winnemucca District, Black Rock Field Office, will implement a temporary closure and temporary restrictions to protect public safety and resources on public lands within and adjacent to the Burning Man event on the Black Rock Desert playa.
The temporary closure and temporary restrictions will be in effect from August 10, 2015 to September 21, 2015.
Gene Seidlitz, BLM District Manager, Winnemucca District, 5100 E. Winnemucca Blvd., Winnemucca, NV 89445-2921, telephone: 775-623-1500, email:
The temporary closure and temporary restrictions affect public lands within and adjacent to the Burning Man event permitted on the Black Rock Desert playa within the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area in Pershing County, Nevada. The legal description of the affected public lands in the temporary public closure area is:
Sec. 23, S
Sec. 24, S
Secs. 25 and 26;
Sec. 27, E
Secs. 34, 35, and 36.
Sec. 16, S
Sec. 21;
Sec. 22, W
Sec. 27, W
Sec. 28;
The temporary closure area comprises 14,153 acres, more or less, in Pershing County, Nevada.
The public closure is necessary for the period of time from August 10, 2015, through September 21, 2015, because of the Burning Man event activities in the area, starting with fencing the site perimeter, final setup, the actual event (August 30 through September 7), initial phases of cleanup, and concluding with final site cleanup.
The public closure area comprises about 13 percent of the Black Rock Desert playa. Public access to other areas of the playa will remain open and the other 87 percent of the playa outside the temporary closure area will remain open to dispersed casual use.
The event area is contained within the temporary closure area. The event area is defined as the portion of the temporary closure area (1) entirely contained within the event perimeter fence, including 50 feet from the outside of the event perimeter fence; and (2) within 25 feet from the outside edge of the event access road; and includes the entirety of the aircraft parking area outside the event perimeter fence.
The temporary closure and temporary restrictions are necessary to provide a safe environment for the participants of the Burning Man event and to members of the public visiting the Black Rock Desert, and to protect public land resources by addressing law enforcement and public safety concerns associated with the event. The event is expected to attract approximately 70,000 paid participants to a remote rural area, more than 90 miles from urban infrastructure and support, including public safety, transportation, and communication services. During the event, Black Rock City, the temporary city associated with the event, becomes the tenth-largest population area in Nevada. This event is authorized on public land under Special Recreation Permit #NVW03500-15-01.
While a majority of Burning Man event participants do not violate event
The Burning Man event takes place within Pershing County, a rural county with a small population and a small Sheriff's Department. The temporary closure and temporary restrictions are necessary to enable BLM law enforcement personnel to provide for public safety and to protect the public lands, as well as to support and assist state and local agencies with enforcement of existing laws.
Implementation of the temporary restrictions will increase interaction with and education of users by BLM law enforcement and educational staff which will indirectly increase appreciation and protection of the public resources.
A temporary closure and temporary restrictions order, under the authority of 43 CFR 8364.1, is appropriate for a single event. A temporary closure and temporary restrictions order is specifically tailored to the timeframe that is necessary to provide a safe environment for the public and for participants at the Burning Man event, and to protect public land resources while avoiding imposing restrictions that may not be necessary in the area during the remainder of the year.
The BLM will post information signs and maps about the temporary closure and temporary restrictions at main entry points around the playa, at the BLM Winnemucca District Office, at the Nevada State Office, at the Black Rock Visitor Center and on the BLM's Web site:
Under the authority of Section 303(a) of FLPMA, 43 CFR 8360.0-7, and 43 CFR 8364.1, the BLM will enforce a temporary public closure and the following temporary restrictions will apply within and adjacent to the Burning Man event on the Black Rock Desert playa from August 10, 2015 through September 21, 2015:
(a) Aircraft Landing:
The public closure area is closed to aircraft landing, taking off, and taxiing. Aircraft is defined in Title 18, U.S.C., section 31(a)(1) and includes lighter-than-air craft and ultra-light craft. The following exceptions apply:
(1) All aircraft operations, including ultra-light and helicopter landings and takeoffs will occur at the designated 88NV Black Rock City Airport landing strips and areas defined by airport management. All takeoffs and landings will occur only during the hours of operation of the airport as described in the Burning Man Operating Plan. All pilots that use the Black Rock City Airport must agree to and abide by the published airport rules and regulations;
(2) Only helicopters providing emergency medical services may land at the designated Emergency Medical Services helicopter pad or at other locations when required for medical incidents. The BLM authorized officer or his/her delegated representative may approve other helicopter landings and takeoffs when deemed necessary for the benefit of the law enforcement operation; and
(3) Landings or takeoffs of lighter-than-air craft previously approved by the BLM authorized officer.
(b) Alcohol:
(1) Possession of an open container of an alcoholic beverage by the driver or operator of any motorized vehicle, whether or not the vehicle is in motion, is prohibited.
(2) Possession of alcohol by minors:
(i) The following are prohibited:
(A) Consumption or possession of any alcoholic beverage by a person under 21 years of age on public lands; and
(B) Selling, offering to sell, or otherwise furnishing or supplying any alcoholic beverage to a person under 21 years of age on public lands.
(3) Operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, narcotics, or dangerous drugs:
(i) Title 43 CFR 8341.1(f)(3) prohibits the operation of an off-road motor vehicle on public land while under the influence of alcohol, narcotics, or dangerous drugs.
(ii) In addition to the prohibition found at 43 CFR8341.1(f)(3), it is prohibited for any person to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while:
(A) The operator is under the combined influence of alcohol, a drug, or drugs to a degree that renders the operator incapable of safe operation of that vehicle; or
(B) The alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath is 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
(C) It is unlawful for any person to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle on a highway or on premises to which the public has access with an amount of a prohibited substance in his or her urine or blood that is equal to or greater than the following nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml):
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(iii) Tests:
(A) At the request or direction of any law enforcement officer authorized by the Department of the Interior to enforce this closure and restriction order, who has probable cause to believe that an operator of a motor vehicle has violated a provision of paragraph (i) or (ii) of this section, the operator shall submit to one or more tests of the blood, breath, saliva, or urine for the purpose of determining blood alcohol and drug content.
(B) Refusal by an operator to submit to a test is prohibited and proof of refusal may be admissible in any related judicial proceeding.
(C) Any test or tests for the presence of alcohol and drugs shall be determined by and administered at the direction of an authorized law enforcement officer.
(D) Any test shall be conducted by using accepted scientific methods and equipment of proven accuracy and reliability operated by personnel certified in its use.
(iv) Presumptive levels:
(A) The results of chemical or other quantitative tests are intended to supplement the elements of probable cause used as the basis for the arrest of an operator charged with a violation of paragraph (i) of this section. If the alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath at the time of testing is
(B) The provisions of paragraph (iv)(A) of this section are not intended to limit the introduction of any other competent evidence bearing upon the question of whether the operator, at the time of the alleged violation, was under the influence of alcohol, a drug or multiple drugs, or any combination thereof.
(4) Definitions:
(i) Open container: Any bottle, can, or other container which contains an alcoholic beverage, if that container does not have a closed top or lid for which the seal has not been broken. If the container has been opened one or more times, and the lid or top has been replaced, that container is an open container.
(ii) Possession of an open container includes any open container that is physically possessed by the driver or operator, or is adjacent to and reachable by that driver or operator. This includes, but is not limited, to containers in a cup holder or rack adjacent to the driver or operator, containers on a vehicle floor next to the driver or operator, and containers on a seat or console area next to a driver or operator.
(c) Drug Paraphernalia:
(1) The possession of drug paraphernalia is prohibited.
(2) Definition: Drug paraphernalia means all equipment, products and materials of any kind which are used, intended for use, or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, concealing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance in violation of any state or Federal law, or regulation issued pursuant to law.
(d) Disorderly Conduct:
(1) Disorderly conduct is prohibited.
(2) Definition: Disorderly conduct means that an individual, with the intent of recklessly causing public alarm, nuisance, jeopardy, or violence; or recklessly creating a risk thereof:
(i) Engages in fighting or violent behavior;
(ii) Uses language, an utterance or gesture, or engages in a display or act that is physically threatening or menacing, or done in a manner that is likely to inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of the peace.
(iii) Obstructs, resists, or attempts to elude a law enforcement officer, or fails to follow their orders or directions.
(e) Eviction of Persons:
(1) The public closure area is closed to any person who:
(i) Has been evicted from the event by the permit holder, Black Rock City LLC, (BRC LLC) whether or not the eviction was requested by the BLM;
(ii) Has been evicted from the event by the BLM;
(iii) Has been ordered by a law enforcement officer to leave the area of the permitted event.
(2) Any person evicted from the event forfeits all privileges to be present within the perimeter fence or anywhere else within the public closure area even if they possess a ticket to attend the event.
(f) Fires:
The ignition of fires on the surface of the Black Rock playa without a burn blanket or burn pan is prohibited.
(g) Fireworks:
The use, sale or possession of personal fireworks is prohibited except for uses of fireworks approved by BRC LLC and used as part of a Burning Man sanctioned art burn event.
(h) Motor Vehicles:
(1) Must comply with the following requirements:
(i) The operator of a motor vehicle must possess a valid driver's license.
(ii) Motor vehicles and trailers must possess evidence of valid registration, except for mutant vehicles, or other vehicles registered with the BRC LLC organizers and operated within the scope of that registration.
(iii) Motor vehicles and trailers must possess evidence of valid insurance, except for mutant vehicles, or other vehicles registered with the BRC LLC organizers and operated within the scope of that registration.
(iv) Motor vehicles and trailers must not block a street used for vehicular travel or a pedestrian pathway.
(v) Motor vehicles must not exceed the posted speed limit.
(vi) No person shall occupy a trailer while the motor vehicle is in transit upon a roadway, except for mutant vehicles, or other vehicles registered with the BRC LLC organizers and operated within the scope of that registration.
(vii) Motor vehicles, other than a motorcycle or golf cart, must be equipped with at least two working headlamps, at least two functioning tail lamps and at least two functioning brake lights, except for mutant vehicles, or other vehicles registered with the BRC LLC organizers and operated within the scope of that registration, so long as they are adequately lit according to Black Rock City, LLC Department of Mutant Vehicle requirements.
(viii) Trailers pulled by motor vehicles must be equipped with at least two functioning tail lamps and at least two functioning brake lights.
(ix) Motor vehicles and trailers must display an unobstructed rear license plate and must be equipped with a mounted lamp to illuminate the rear license plate, except for mutant vehicles, or other vehicles registered with the BRC LLC organizers and operated within the scope of that registration.
(2) The public closure area is closed to motor vehicle use, except as provided below. Motor vehicles may be operated within the public closure area under the circumstances listed below:
(i) Participant arrival and departure on designated routes;
(ii) BLM, medical, law enforcement, and firefighting vehicles are authorized at all times;
(iii) Vehicles, mutant vehicles, or art cars operated by BRC LLC staff or contractors and service providers on behalf of BRC LLC are authorized at all times. These vehicles must display evidence of event registration in such manner that it is visible to the rear of the vehicle while the vehicle is in motion;
(iv) Vehicles used by disabled drivers and displaying official state disabled driver license plates or placards; or mutant vehicles and art cars, or other vehicles registered with the BRC LLC must display evidence of registration at all times in such manner that it is visible to the rear of the vehicle while the vehicle is in motion;
(iv) Motorized skateboards, electric assist bicycles, or Go-Peds with or without handlebars;
(v) Participant drop-off of approved burnables and wood to the Burn Garden/Wood Reclamation Stations (located on open playa at 3:00, 6:00, 9:00 Promenades and the Man base) from 9:00 a.m. Sunday, September 6, 2015 through the end of day Tuesday, September 8, 2015, post event; and
(vi) Passage through, without stopping, the public closure area on the west or east playa roads.
(3) Definitions:
(i) A motor vehicle is any device designed for and capable of travel over land and which is self-propelled by a motor, but does not include any vehicle operated on rails or any motorized wheelchair.
(ii) Motorized wheelchair means a self-propelled wheeled device, designed solely for and used by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion.
(iii) A trailer is any instrument designed to be hauled by a motor vehicle.
(i) Public Camping:
The public closure area is closed to public camping with the following exception: Burning Man event ticket holders who are camped in designated event areas provided by BRC LLC, and ticket holders who are camped in the authorized pilot camp. BRC LLC authorized staff, contractors, and BLM authorized event management related camps are exempt from this closure.
(j) Public Use:
The public closure area is closed to use by members of the public unless that person: Is traveling through, without stopping, the public closure area on the west or east playa roads; possesses a valid ticket to attend the event; is an employee or authorized volunteer with the BLM, a law enforcement officer, emergency medical service provider, fire protection provider, or another public agency employee working at the event and that individual is assigned to the event; is a person working at or attending the event on behalf of BRC LLC; or is authorized by BRC LLC to be onsite prior to the commencement of the event for the primary purpose of constructing, creating, designing or installing art, displays, buildings, facilities or other items and structures in connection with the event; or is a commercial operation to provide services to the event organizers and/or participants authorized by BRC LLC through a contract or agreement and authorized by BLM through a Special Recreation Permit.
(k) Waste Water Discharge:
The dumping or discharge to the ground of gray water is prohibited. Gray water is water that has been used for cooking, washing, dishwashing, or bathing and contains soap, detergent, food scraps, or food residue.
(l) Human Waste:
Depositing of human waste on the ground is prohibited.
(m) Unmanned Aircraft Systems:
(1) The use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) is prohibited, unless the operator is registered through and complies with the Remote Control BRC program (RCBRC) and operates the UAS in accordance with Federal laws and regulations.
(2) Definition:
(i) Unmanned aircraft means an aircraft operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.
(ii) An unmanned aircraft system is the unmanned aircraft (UA) and all of the associated support equipment, control station, data links, telemetry, communications and navigation equipment, etc., necessary to operate the unmanned aircraft.
(n) Lasers:
(1) The possession and or use of handheld lasers is prohibited.
(2) Definition:
(i) A laser means any hand held laser beam device or demonstration laser product that emits a single point of light amplified by the stimulated emission of radiation that is visible to the human eye.
(o) Weapons:
(1) The possession of any weapon is prohibited except weapons within motor vehicles passing, without stopping, through the public closure area on the west or east playa roads.
(2) The discharge of any weapon is prohibited.
(3) The prohibitions above shall not apply to county, state, tribal, and Federal law enforcement personnel who are working in their official capacity at the event. “Art projects” that include weapons and are sanctioned by BRC LLC will be permitted after obtaining authorization from the BLM authorized officer.
(4) Definitions:
(i) Weapon means a firearm, compressed gas or spring powered pistol or rifle, bow and arrow, cross bow, blowgun, spear gun, hand-thrown spear, sling shot, irritant gas device, electric stunning or immobilization device, explosive device, any implement designed to expel a projectile, switch-blade knife, any blade which is greater than 10 inches in length from the tip of the blade to the edge of the hilt or finger guard nearest the blade (
(ii) Firearm means any pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, or other device which is designed to, or may be readily converted to expel a projectile by the ignition of a propellant.
(iii) Discharge means the expelling of a projectile from a weapon.
Any person who violates the above rules and restrictions may be tried before a United States Magistrate and fined no more than $100,000, imprisoned no more than 12 months, or both, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3571(b), 43 U.S.C. 1733(a), and 43 CFR 8360.0-7. Such violations may also be subject to the enhanced penalties provided by 18 U.S.C. 3571 and 3581. In accordance with 43 CFR 8365.1-7, State or local officials may also impose penalties for violations of Nevada law.
43 CFR 8364.1.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of filing of plats of survey.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plats of survey of the lands described below in the BLM Montana State Office, Billings, Montana, on September 3, 2015.
Protests of the survey must be filed before September 3, 2015 to be considered.
Protests of the survey should be sent to the Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669.
Andrew Varilek, Cadastral Surveyor, Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669, telephone (406) 896-5166 or (406) 896-5003,
This survey was executed at the request of the Field Manager, Lewistown Field Office, and was necessary to delineate Federal lands. The lands we surveyed are:
The plat, in two sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the east boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines and the subdivision of sections 13, 14,
The plat, in one sheet, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the north boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines and the subdivision of section 6, Township 11 North, Range 23 East, Principal Meridian, Montana, was accepted July 21, 2015.
We will place a copy of the plats, in three sheets, and related field notes we described in the open files. They will be available to the public as a matter of information. If the BLM receives a protest against this survey, as shown on these plats, in three sheets, prior to the date of the official filing, we will stay the filing pending our consideration of the protest. We will not officially file these plats, in three sheets, until the day after we have accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, including decisions or appeals.
43 U.S.C. Chap. 3.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wyoming Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
The meeting is scheduled for, Wednesday, Aug. 19, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
The meeting will be conducted by teleconference, which the public may attend the call in person at the Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Christian Venhuizen, Wyoming Resource Advisory Council Coordinator, Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, WY 82009; telephone 307-775-6103; email
This 10-member RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior on a variety of management issues associated with public land management in Wyoming. Planned agenda topics include discussions on the Greater Sage-Grouse and follow-up to previous RAC meetings. On Wednesday, Aug. 19, the meeting will begin at 8 a.m., in the Wyoming State Office's first floor conference room and adjourn for lunch at noon. The meeting will resume with a public comment period at 1 p.m. in the conference room. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. If there are no members of the public interested in speaking, the meeting will move promptly to the next agenda item. The public may also submit written comments to the RAC by emailing
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before July 11, 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 August 19, 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.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Correction of Notice. The Commission hereby corrects the summary section of the notice published in the
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 41) terminating the above-captioned investigation in its entirety based upon settlement. The commission has also determined to vacate Order No. 34 as moot.
Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3042. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on August 21, 2014, based on a Complaint filed by Enterprise Systems Technologies S.a.r.l. of Luxembourg (“Enterprise”). 79 FR 49537-38 (Aug. 21, 2014). The Complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain communications or computing devices and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,691,302 (“the '302 patent”); 5,870,610; 6,594,366; and 7,454,201. The notice of investigation named the following respondents: HTC Corporation of Taoyuan, Taiwan; HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington; LG Electronics Inc. of Seoul, Republic of Korea; LG Electronics USA, Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. of San Diego, California; Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. of Seoul, Republic of Korea; Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey; Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC of Richardson, Texas (collectively, “Remaining Respondents”); Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California (“Apple”); and Cirrus Logic Inc. of Austin, Texas (“Cirrus”). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations was also named as a party to the investigation.
On September 9, 2014, the ALJ issued an initial determination, Order No. 6, granting intervenor status to Google Inc. of Mountain View, California (“Google”). On March 9, 2015, the ALJ issued an ID, Order No. 20, terminating the investigation as to Cirrus. On June 5, 2015, the ALJ issued an ID, Order No. 37, terminating the investigation as to Apple. The Commission determined not to review those IDs.
On May 21, 2015, the ALJ issued Order No. 34, an initial determination terminating the '302 patent from the investigation based upon a lack of standing. Enterprise filed a petition for review on May 28, 2015. The parties subsequently moved for a 60-day extension to file any further briefing on the issue. The Commission granted the motion on June 1, 2015, and extended the date for determining whether to review Order No. 34 to August 21, 2015. Thus, Order No. 34 remains outstanding.
On June 22, 2015, Enterprise, Remaining Respondents, and Google jointly moved to terminate the investigation in its entirety based upon settlement. On June 29, 2015, the Commission investigative attorney filed a response in support of the motion. No other responses to the motion were received.
The ALJ issued the subject ID on July 1, 2015, and a corrected version on July 17, 2015, granting the joint motion for termination. The ALJ found that the settlement agreement satisfies the requirements of Commission Rule 210.21(b). She further found, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(2), that there is no indication that termination of the investigation would adversely impact the public interest. No one petitioned for review of the ID.
The Commission has determined not to review the ID as corrected. In light of the settlement, the Commission has determined to vacate Order No. 34 as moot.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in art 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Notice of registration.
Johnson Matthey, Inc. applied to be registered as an importer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants Johnson Matthey, Inc., registration as an importer of those controlled substances.
By notice dated April 14, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of Johnson Matthey, Inc. to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above-named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic classes controlled substances:
The company plans to import thebaine derivatives and fentanyl as reference standards.
The company plans to import the remaining listed controlled substances as raw materials, to be used in the manufacture of bulk controlled substances, for distribution to its customers.
On March 25, 2015, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Christopher B. McNeil issued the attached Recommended Decision. Neither party filed exceptions to the Recommended Decision.
Having reviewed the record in its entirety, I adopt the ALJ's findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommended order.
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(3), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration BE6969541, issued to Adeline Davies Essien, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending application of Adeline Davies Essien, M.D., to renew or modify her registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective September 3, 2015.
Administrative Law Judge Christopher B. McNeil. On January 21, 2015, the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued an Order to Show Cause as to why the DEA should not revoke DEA Certificate of Registration Number BE6969541 issued to Adeline Davies Essien, M.D., the Respondent in this matter. The Order seeks to revoke Respondent's registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4) and 823(f), and to deny any pending applications for renewal or modification of such registration, and deny any applications for any new DEA registrations pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f). As grounds for denial, the Government alleges that Respondent is “currently without authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Illinois, the state in which [Respondent is] registered with the DEA.”
On February 27, 2015, the DEA's Office of Administrative Law Judges received Respondent's written request for a hearing, which is dated February 26, 2015. Respondent stated that she objected to the Government's allegation regarding Respondent's authority to handle controlled substances. Respondent further stated that she “does have authority to practice medicine and handle controlled substances.”
On March 3, 2015, this Office issued an Order for Briefing on Allegations Concerning Respondent's Lack of State Authority, Order for Prehearing Statements, and Order Setting the Matter for Hearing. In the Order, I mandated that the parties provide briefs regarding the allegation that Respondent lacks state authority to handle controlled substances no later than 2:00 p.m. on March 17, 2015. In my Order, I also provided that responses to any briefs be submitted by no later than 2:00 p.m. on March 24, 2015. On March 17, 2015, I timely received the Government's Response to Order and Motion for Summary Disposition. According to the Government's motion,
Respondent filed a timely response to the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition on March 24, 2015. In her response, Respondent states that her Illinois State medical license case is pending appeal and is therefore not a final disposition. Respondent further attached an affidavit affirming that she has a case pending before the Illinois Administrative Law Court that is pending appeal. She also attached “Exhibit B” containing a statement from Lillian Walanka, who is representing Respondent before the Illinois Administrative Law Court. Ms. Walanka again confirms that the case is pending final action by Illinois authorities. Ms. Walanka states that although Respondent filed a timely renewal application of her controlled substances license, her controlled substances license was not renewed pending a Notice of Intent to Refuse to Renew by authorities in Illinois.
The substantial issue raised by the Government rests on an undisputed fact. The Government asserts that Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration must be revoked because Respondent does not have an active controlled substance registration issued by the state in which she practices. Under DEA precedent, a practitioner's DEA Certificate of Registration for controlled substances must be summarily revoked if the applicant is not authorized to handle controlled substances in the state in which she maintains her DEA registration.
Respondent correctly argues in her response that a final disposition has not been made regarding her controlled substance registration in Illinois's administrative proceedings. However, Respondent mischaracterizes the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition when alleging that the Government is arguing that a final disposition had occurred. The Government is only arguing that Respondent is currently without authority to handle controlled substances in Illinois. To emphasize this point, the Government cites to the case of
I find there is no genuine dispute regarding whether Respondent is a “practitioner” as that term is defined by 21 U.S.C. 802(21), and that based on the record the Government has established that Respondent is not a practitioner and is not authorized to dispense controlled substances in the state in which she seeks to practice with a DEA Certificate of Registration. I find no other material facts at issue. Accordingly, I GRANT the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition.
Upon this finding, I ORDER that this case be forwarded to the Administrator for final disposition and I recommended that Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration should be REVOKED and any pending application for the renewal or modification of the same should be DENIED.
Notice of registration.
Sigma Aldrich Research Biochemicals, Inc. applied to be registered as a manufacturer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants Sigma Aldrich Research Biochemicals, Inc. registration as a manufacturer of those controlled substances.
By notice dated April 14, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Sigma Aldrich Research Biochemicals, Inc. to manufacture the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above-named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed:
The company plans to manufacture reference standards.
On March 20, 2015, Chief Administrative Law Judge (CALJ) John J. Mulrooney, II, issued the attached Recommended Decision. Neither party filed exceptions to the Recommended Decision.
Having reviewed the record in its entirety, I adopt the CALJ's findings of fact,
Notwithstanding that the language of section 824(a) authorizes either the suspension or revocation of a registration upon the making of one of the five findings enumerated therein, the Agency has consistently interpreted the CSA as mandating revocation where a practitioner's state authority has been suspended or revoked. As the Fourth Circuit has held, “[b]ecause § 823(f) and § 802(21) make clear that a practitioner's registration is dependent upon the practitioner having state authority to dispense controlled substances, the [Administrator's] decision to construe § 824(a)(3) as mandating revocation upon suspension of a state license is not an unreasonable interpretation of the CSA.”
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(3), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration BL2132049, issued to Pedro E. Lopez, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending application of Pedro E. Lopez, M.D., to renew or modify his registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective September 3, 2015.
Chief Administrative Law Judge John J. Mulrooney, II. The Deputy Assistant Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government), issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC), dated February 6, 2015, proposing to revoke the DEA Certificate of Registration (COR), Number BL2132049, of Pedro E. Lopez, M.D. (Respondent), pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) and 21 U.S.C. 823(f), and deny any pending applications for renewal or modification of the COR, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f).
In the OSC, the Government alleges that the Respondent is,
Consistent with my direction, the parties have briefed the issues. On March 11, 2015, the Government filed a Motion for Summary Disposition and Evidence in Support of its Motion for Summary Disposition (Motion for Summary Disposition), seeking that this tribunal issue a Recommended Decision granting the Government's Motion on the ground that the Respondent is currently without state authority to handle controlled substances. Mot. for Summary Disp. at 1. According to the Government's Motion, the State of Illinois, Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR) suspended the Respondent's license to practice medicine, effective March 12, 2014, and that suspension order remains in effect.
On March 20, 2015, the Respondent, through counsel, filed a reply styled “Response to the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition and Evidence in Support of its Motion for Summary Disposition” (Respondent's Reply). In his Reply, the Respondent alleges that he is in the process of seeking reinstatement of his medical license from the state of Illinois. Resp't Reply at 2. In opposing the Government's requested relief, the Respondent avers that inasmuch as he is currently not prescribing controlled substances, granting a hearing, or at least deferring adjudication until his state privileges are restored presents no cognizable danger to the public.
In order to revoke a registrant's DEA registration, the DEA has the burden of proving that the requirements for revocation are satisfied. 21 CFR 1301.44(e) (2015). Once DEA has made its
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) requires that, in order to maintain a DEA registration, a practitioner must be authorized to handle controlled substances in “the jurisdiction in which he practices.”
Congress does not intend for administrative agencies to perform meaningless tasks.
Summary disposition of an administrative case is warranted where, as here, “there is no factual dispute of substance.”
Accordingly, I hereby
Dated: March 20, 2015.
On May 8, 2015, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, noting that the expiration date of Respondent's registration was June 30, 2014, ordered the parties to address whether the case is now moot. The Administrator's Order was served on Respondent's counsel at his address of record.
The Government filed a timely response and served a copy of its response on Respondent's counsel at his address of record. Govt. Response to Administrator's May 8, 2015 Order, at 1. Respondent has not filed a response.
In its Response, the Government advises that Respondent neither submitted a renewal application prior to the expiration of its registration nor an application for a new registration.
It is so ordered.
Notice of registration.
National Center for Natural Products Research (NIDA MPROJECT), Inc. applied to be registered as a manufacturer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants National Center for Natural Products Research (NIDA MPROJECT), Inc. registration as a manufacturer of those controlled substances.
By notice dated April 14, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of National Center for Natural Products Research (NIDA MPROJECT), Inc. to manufacture the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above-named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to cultivate marihuana in support of the National Institute on Drug Abuse for research approved by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of registration.
Sigma-Aldrich International GMBH, Sigma Aldrich Co., LLC applied to be registered as an importer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants Sigma-Aldrich International GMBH, Sigma Aldrich Co., LLC registration as an importer of those controlled substances.
By notice dated April 14, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of Sigma-Aldrich International GMBH, Sigma Aldrich Co., LLC to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above-named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic classes controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances for sale to research facilities for drug testing and analysis.
In reference to drug codes 7360 and 7370, the company plans to import a synthetic cannabidiol and a synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol. No other activity for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Notice of registration.
Hospira applied to be registered as an importer of certain basic class of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants Hospira registration as an importer of this controlled substance.
By notice dated March 20, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of Hospira to import the basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above-named company is granted registration as an importer of remifentanil (9739) a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company plans to import remifentanil for use in dosage form manufacturing.
Notice of registration.
Cayman Chemicals Company applied to be registered as a manufacturer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants Cayman Chemicals Company registration as a manufacturer of those controlled substances.
By notice dated April 14, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Cayman Chemicals Company to manufacture the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above-named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed:
The company plans to manufacture reference standards for distribution to their research and forensics customers.
In reference to drug codes 7360 Marihuana, and 7370 (THC), the company plans to bulk manufacture these drugs as synthetic. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before September 3, 2015. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before September 3, 2015.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODXL, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. Request for hearings should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. Comments and requests for hearings on applications to import narcotic raw material are not appropriate. 72 FR 3417 (January 25, 2007).
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on March 12, 2015, Research Triangle Institute, Kenneth S. Rehder, Hermann Building East Institute Drive, P.O. Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709-2194 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import small quantities of the listed controlled substances for the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) for research activities.
The company plans to import analytical reference standards for distribution to its customers for research
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on or before October 5, 2015.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODXL, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. Request for hearings should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on July 28, 2014, Cedarburg Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 870 Badger Circle, Grafton, Wisconsin 53024 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture the above-listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers. In reference to drug code 7360 marihuana, the company plans to bulk manufacture cannabidiol as a synthetic intermediate. This controlled substance will be further synthesized to bulk manufacture a synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol 7370. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.
Notice of registration.
Cody Laboratories, Inc. applied to be registered as a manufacturer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants Cody Laboratories, Inc. registration as a manufacturer of those controlled substances.
By notice dated April 14, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Cody Laboratories, Inc. to manufacture the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above-named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed:
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for sale to its customers.
Notice of registration.
Johnson Matthey, Inc. applied to be registered as a manufacturer of certain basic classes of controlled
By notice dated February 11, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Johnson Matthey, Inc. to manufacture the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above-named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed:
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution and sale to its customers.
The thebaine (9333) will be used to manufacture other controlled substances for sale in bulk to its customers.
Notice of registration.
Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. applied to be registered as an importer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc., registration as an importer of those controlled substances.
By notice dated April 14, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above-named company is granted registration as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the above-listed controlled substances for clinical trials, research and analytical purposes.
The import of the above-listed basic classes of controlled substances would be granted only for analytical testing and clinical trials. This authorization does not extend to the import of a finished Food and Drug Administration approved or non-approved dosage form for commercial distribution in the United States.
Notice of registration.
Almac Clinical Services Inc. (ACSI) applied to be registered as an importer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants Almac Clinical Services Inc. (ACSI) registration as an importer of those controlled substances.
By notice dated April 14, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of Almac Clinical Services Inc. (ACSI) to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above-named company is granted registration as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import small quantities of the listed controlled substances in dosage form to conduct clinical trials.
Notice of registration.
Meridian Medical Technologies applied to be registered as an importer of a certain basic class of controlled substance. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants Meridian Medical Technologies registration as an importer of this controlled substance.
By notice dated April 14, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of Meridian Medical Technologies to import the basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above-named company is granted registration as an importer of morphine (9300), a basic class controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company manufactures a product containing morphine in the United States. The company exports this product to customers around the world. The company has been asked to ensure that its product, which is sold to European customers, meets the standards established by the European Pharmacopeia, administered by the Directorate for the Quality of Medicines (EDQM). In order to ensure that its product will meet European specifications, the company seeks to import morphine supplied by EDQM for use as reference standards.
This is the sole purpose for which the company will be authorized by the DEA to import morphine.
Notice of registration.
Pharmacore, Inc. applied to be registered as a manufacturer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants Pharmacore, Inc. registration as a manufacturer of those controlled substances.
By notice dated April 14, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Pharmacore, Inc. to manufacture the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above-named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substance as an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) for clinical trials.
Notice of registration.
Cambrex Charles City applied to be registered as a manufacturer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants Cambrex Charles City registration as a manufacturer of those controlled substances.
By notice dated April 14, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Cambrex Charles City to manufacture the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above-named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed:
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for sale to its customers, for dosage form development, for clinical trials, and for use in stability qualification studies.
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment and Training Administration is soliciting comments concerning the collection of data for quarterly financial reporting on federally funded programs, on Form ETA-9130 (currently due to expire December 31, 2015).
A copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addressee section of this notice.
Submit written comments to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before October 5, 2015.
Send written comments to Maggie Ewell, Division of Policy, Review, and Resolution, Office of Grants Management, Room N-4716, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone number: 202-693-3160 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-877-889-5627 (TTY/TDD). Fax: 202-693-2705. Email:
ETA awards approximately $8 billion in formula and discretionary grants each year to an average of 1,000 recipients. Financial reports for each of these grants must be submitted quarterly on the financial report form ETA-9130. Recipients include but are not limited to: State Employment Security Agencies which are comprised of three components: Wagner Peyser Employment Service, Unemployment Insurance program, and Trade Program Grant Agreements; as well as Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Youth, Adult, and Dislocated Worker programs; National Dislocated Worker Grants; National Farmworker Jobs Program (NFJP); Indian and Native American programs; the Senior Community Service Employment Program; Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act discretionary grants; and H-1B Job Training Grants.
Financial reporting requirements for Federal programs prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) have changed with the implementation of the Uniform Guidance, which went into effect on December 26, 2014, replacing numerous previously applicable Circulars. These changes affect both the ETA-9130 reporting form and its instructions. However, they do not affect the collection burden, but instead only update certain key terms and definitions.
Additionally, with the passage of WIOA, there are numerous new statutory requirements that impact financial reporting, including but not limited to new and/or revised limitations and baselines that require the addition of new and modification of existing reporting line items on ETA-9130 Financial Reports, as outlined in this TEGL. Other reporting line items have been added and removed in an effort to streamline Federal financial reporting and make form ETA-9130 more closely resemble the SF-425 (OMB 0348-0061), which is the standard financial reporting form for Federal grant recipients.
ETA has utilized the data collected to assess the effectiveness of ETA programs and to monitor and analyze the financial activity of its grantees. Grantees are provided with pre-designed software to reflect the requirements of ETA Form 9130 so that the required data will be reported electronically. ETA strives to reduce reporting time for our recipients. Several sections of the 9130 have pre-filled line items or automatically calculated line items, which is convenient and time saving for our recipients.
This data collection format permits ETA to evaluate program effectiveness and to monitor and analyze financial activity, while complying with OMB efforts to streamline Federal financial reporting.
The Department is particularly interested in comments which:
• 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,
• 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,
We will summarize and/or include in the request for OMB approval of the ICR, the comments received in response to this comment request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Diesel-Powered Equipment in Underground Coal Mines,” 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 September 3, 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-MSHA, 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 Diesel-Powered Equipment in Underground Coal Mines information collection requirements codified in regulations 30 CFR part 75. The MSHA requires a mine operator to provide important safety and health protection to an underground coal miner who works on and around diesel-powered equipment. Engines powering diesel equipment are potential contributors to fires and explosion hazards in the confined environment of an underground coal mine where combustible coal dust and explosive methane gas are present. In addition, diesel equipment operating in an underground coal mine can pose serious health risks to miners from exposure to diesel exhaust emissions, including diesel particulates, oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide. Diesel exhaust is a lung carcinogen in animals.
This information collection pertains to diesel equipment maintenance and use; tests and maintenance of fire suppression systems on both the equipment and at fueling stations; and exhaust gas sampling. Records are required to document essential testing and maintenance of diesel-powered equipment are conducted regularly by a qualified person; any corrective action is taken; and a person performing covered maintenance, repairs, examinations, or tests is trained and qualified to perform such tasks.
The subject information collection requirements are found in regulations 30 CFR 75.1901(a), Diesel fuel requirements; 75.1904(b)(4)(i), Underground diesel fuel tanks and safety cans; 75.1906(d), Transport of diesel fuel; 75.1911(j), Fire suppression systems for diesel-powered equipment and fuel transportation units; 75.1912(i), Fire suppression systems for permanent underground diesel fuel storage facilities; 75.1914(f)(2), (g), (h)(1), and (h)(2), Maintenance of diesel-powered equipment; sections 75.1915(b)(5), (c)(1), and (c)(2), Training and qualification of persons working on diesel-powered equipment. Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 sections 801(a) and 803(h) authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2015. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information
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,
August 3, 10, 17, 24, 31, September 7, 2015.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 17, 2015.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 24, 2015.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 31, 2015.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Glenn Ellmers at 301-415-0442 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment request; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is considering approval of two amendment requests. The amendment requests are for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant,
Comments must be filed by September 3, 2015. A request for a hearing must be filed by October 5, 2015. Any potential party as defined in § 2.4 of Title 10 of the
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0165 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:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0165, facility name, unit number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the NRC is publishing this notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This notice includes notices of amendments containing SUNSI.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish a notice of issuance in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change extends use of DPC-NE-2005-P-A, “Thermal-Hydraulic Statistical Core Design Methodology” to Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP) and H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP). The NRC has previously reviewed and approved use of this methodology, stating it is direct and general enough to be widely applicable to any Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) core. The methodology will be applied to SHNPP and HBRSEP after approval by the NRC. The proposed methodology does not affect the performance of any equipment used to mitigate the consequences of an analyzed accident. There is no impact on the source term or pathways assumed in accidents previously assumed. No analysis assumptions are violated and there are no adverse effects on the factors that contribute to offsite or onsite dose as the result of an accident. No accident probabilities or consequences will be impacted by this LAR [license amendment request].
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change extends use of DPC-NE-2005-P-A, “Thermal-Hydraulic Statistical Core Design Methodology” to Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP) and H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP). It does not change any system functions or maintenance activities. The change does not involve physical alteration of the plant, that is, no new or different type of equipment will be installed. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analyses but ensures that the core will operate within safe limits. This change does not create new failure modes or mechanisms which are not identifiable during testing, and no new accident precursors are generated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change extends use of DPC-NE-2005-P-A, “Thermal-Hydraulic Statistical Core Design Methodology” to Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP) and H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP). The NRC has previously reviewed and approved use of this methodology, stating it is direct and general enough to be widely applicable to any PWR core. The methodology will be applied to SHNPP and HBRSEP after approval by the NRC. Consistent with the existing methodology, the use of the proposed methodology will continue to ensure that all applicable design and safety limits are satisfied such that the fission product barriers will continue to perform their design functions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing SUNSI.
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may request such access. A “potential party” is any person who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requester's basis for the need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why publicly-available versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order
F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that are based upon the information received as a result of the request made for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after the requestor is granted access to that information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the date the petitioner is granted access to the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline. This provision does not extend the time for filing a request for a hearing and petition to intervene, which must comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.309.
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff after a determination on standing and need for access, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requester may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an administrative law judge
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requester may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief Administrative Judge within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of access.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311.
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
It is so ordered.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Biweekly notice.
Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from July 9, 2015, to July 22, 2015. The last biweekly notice was published on July 21, 2015.
Comments must be filed by September 30, 2015. A request for a hearing must be filed by October 5, 2015.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927 email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0181 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:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0181, facility name, unit number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in section 50.92 of Title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This LAR [license amendment request] proposes administrative non-technical changes only. These proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configurations of the facility. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems[,] and components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event witin the assumed acceptance limits.
Given the above discussion, it is concluded the proposed amendment does not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The LAR proposes administrative non-technical changes only. The proposed changes will not alter the design requirements of any [SSC] or its function during accident conditions. No new or different accidents result from the changes proposed. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant or any changes in methods governing normal plant operation. The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis.
Given the above discussion, it is concluded the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
This LAR proposes administrative non-technical changes only. The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by these changes. The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed changes do not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
Given the above discussion, it is concluded [that] the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
These changes affect the HBRSEP2 [H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant Unit No. 2] Emergency Plan and do not alter any of the requirements of the Operating License or the Technical Specifications. The proposed changes do not modify any plant equipment and do not impact any failure modes that could lead to an accident. Additionally, the proposed changes do not impact the consequence of any analyzed accident since the changes do not affect any equipment related to accident mitigation.
Based on this discussion, the proposed amendment does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
These changes affect the HBRSEP2 Emergency Plan and do not alter any of the requirements of the Operating License or the Technical Specifications. They do not modify any plant equipment and there is no impact on the capability of the existing equipment to perform their intended functions. No system setpoints are being modified and no changes are being made to the method in which plant operations are conducted. No new failure modes are introduced by the proposed changes. The proposed amendment does not introduce an accident initiator or malfunctions that would cause a new or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
These changes affect the HBRSEP2 Emergency Plan and do not alter any of the requirements of the Operating License or the Technical Specifications. The proposed changes do not affect any of the assumptions used in the accident analysis, nor do they affect any operability requirements for equipment important to plant safety.
Therefore, the proposed changes will not result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety as defined in the bases for technical specifications covered in this license amendment request.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This proposed change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. In addition, the milestone date delay for full implementation of the CSP has no substantive impact because other measures have been taken which provide adequate protection during this period of time. Because there is no change to established safety margins as a result of this change, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This proposed change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. In addition, the milestone date delay for full implementation of the CSP has no substantive impact because other measures have been taken which provide adequate protection during this period of time. Because there is no change to established safety margins as a result of this change, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the CSP implementation schedule is administrative in nature. This change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents, and has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the CSP implementation schedule is administrative in nature. This proposed change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions for operation,
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
SR 4.4.1.3.4 verifies RHR [residual heat removal] loop locations susceptible to gas accumulation are sufficiently filled with water in accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program. The proposed change adds a note to allow SR 4.4.1.3.4 to be performed 12 hours after entering the Mode of Applicability. Gas accumulation in the subject system is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The proposed note does not change SR 4.4.1.3.4 which ensures that the subject system continues to be capable of performing its assumed safety function and is not rendered inoperable due to gas accumulation.
Thus, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not adversely affect any current plant safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed in the safety analysis. Therefore, there are no changes being made to any safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The Nuclear Instrumentation System (NIS) provides indication and plant protection through the reactor trip function; it is not an accident initiator or precursor. The reactor trip is part of the plant's accident mitigation response. Thus, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased.
The performance of the replacement SR and IR detectors and associated equipment will equal or exceed that of the existing Westinghouse instrumentation. The proposed changes are based on accepted industry standards and will preserve assumptions in the applicable accident analyses. The proposed changes do not affect the integrity of the fission product barriers utilized for the mitigation of radiological dose consequences as a result of an accident. The proposed changes do not alter any assumptions previously made in the radiological consequences evaluations, nor do they affect mitigation of the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The manner in which the Reactor Trip System (RTS) provides plant protection is not changed. The replacement SR and IR detectors and associated equipment do not affect accident initiation sequences or response scenarios as modeled in the safety analyses. The SR and IR detectors and associated equipment are not accident initiators or precursors. The only physical changes to the plant involve the replacement detectors and associated equipment. The replacement SR and IR detectors and
No changes to the overall manner in which the plant is operated are being proposed. Existing accident scenarios remain unchanged and new or different accident scenarios are not created. The types of accident defined in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) continue to represent the credible spectrum of events analyzed to determine safe plant operation.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to perform their intended functions. These barriers include the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system pressure boundary, and the containment. Neither the modification to replace the SR and IR detectors and associated equipment, nor the proposed Technical Specification changes will impact these barriers. Accident mitigating equipment will not be adversely impacted as a result of the modification. The safety systems credited in the safety analyses continue to remain available to perform their required mitigation functions. The proposed changes do not affect any safety analysis conclusions because the SR and IR neutron flux reactor trips are not explicitly credited in any accident analyses. Their functional capability enhances the overall reliability of the Reactor Protection System.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The following notices were previously published as separate individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were published as individual notices either because time did not allow the Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued involving no significant hazards consideration.
For details, see the individual notice in the
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 14, 2015.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 17, 2015.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 16, 2015.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 9, 2015.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 20, 2015.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 16, 2015.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 14, 2015.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 14, 2015.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 17, 2015.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 17, 2015.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application for the amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual notice of consideration of issuance of amendment, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a
In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the license amendment has been issued without opportunity for
Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no significant hazards consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have been issued and made effective as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating License or Combined License, as applicable, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment, as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with respect to the issuance of the amendment. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852, and electronically on the Internet at the NRC's Web site,
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of exigent circumstances, State consultation, public comments, and final NSHC determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 10, 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning an additional Global Expedited Package Services 3 negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On July 29, 2015, the Postal Service filed notice that it has entered into an additional Global Expedited Package Services 3 (GEPS 3) negotiated service agreement (Agreement).
To support its Notice, the Postal Service filed a copy of the Agreement, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2015-116 for consideration of matters raised by the Notice.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filing is consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than August 6, 2015. The public portions of the filing can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya to serve as Public Representative in this docket.
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2015-116 for consideration of the matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than August 6, 2015.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
The Exchange is proposing to amend its SAL rule to make it explicit that 6.13A(d) applies to Hybrid 3.0 classes.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to amend language to clarify that certain
Currently, Rule 6.13A(d) states that an auction will terminate early under certain circumstances related to the Hybrid System.
The Exchange believes the proposed change will allow the Exchange to clarify that Rule 6.13A(d) applies to Hybrid 3.0 classes as well. The proposed change will allow the Exchange to remove the ambiguity of its rule text regarding SAL in order to lessen confusion about which provisions apply to Hybrid 3.0 classes. In addition, the Exchange believes the lack of explicit reference to 6.13A(d) applying to Hybrid 3.0 classes is somewhat ambiguous and has the potential to cause confusion. Thus, the Exchange believes by further clarifying the language, it will be clearer which SAL provisions apply to Hybrid 3.0 classes.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the proposed rule change is consistent with these provisions as it will more accurately reflect the intentions of the Exchange for 6.13A(d) to apply to Hybrid 3.0 classes. The purpose of the proposed change is to add clarity to the rule text, however, the current practices of the Exchange will remain the same. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will help avoid confusion, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes any burden on intramarket competition because it applies to all TPHs. SAL will continue to function in the same manner as it currently functions. Furthermore, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes any burden on intermarket competition because it specifies that paragraph (d): (1) Will apply to all classes activated in Hybrid 3.0; (2) applies equally to all intermarket users and; (3) otherwise just makes technical changes to improve readability.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 19, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares. The Shares will be offered by the Cambria ETF Trust (“Trust”), a Delaware statutory trust which is registered with the Commission as an open-end management investment company.
The Exchange states that, under normal market conditions,
The Exchange states that, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of the value of the Fund's net assets will be invested in U.S. exchange-listed equity securities that are undervalued according to various valuation metrics.
In attempting to avoid overvalued and downtrending markets, the Fund may use U.S. exchange-traded stock index futures or options thereon, or take short positions in ETFs to attempt to hedge the long equity portfolio during times when Cambria believes that the U.S. equity market is overvalued from a valuation standpoint, or Cambria's models identify unfavorable trends and momentum in the U.S. equity market. The Fund may hedge up to 100% of the value of the Fund's long portfolio using these strategies. During certain periods, including to collateralize the Fund's investments in futures contracts, the Fund may invest up to 20% of the value
According to the Exchange, while each Fund, under normal market conditions, will invest at least 80% of the value of its net assets (plus borrowings for investment purposes) in the securities and other assets described above, each Fund may invest its remaining assets in the securities and financial instruments described below.
A Fund may invest a portion of its assets in cash or cash items pending other investments or to maintain liquid assets required in connection with some of a Fund's investments. A Fund may invest in corporate debt securities. A Fund may invest in commercial paper, master notes and other short-term corporate instruments that are denominated in U.S. dollars. A Fund may invest in the following types of debt securities in addition to those described above as principal investments: Securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government, its agencies, instrumentalities, and political subdivisions; securities issued or guaranteed by foreign governments, their authorities, agencies, instrumentalities and political subdivisions; securities issued or guaranteed by supra-national agencies; corporate debt securities; time deposits; notes; inflation-indexed securities; and repurchase agreements; indexed bonds; and zero coupon securities.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act
The Commission finds that the proposal to list and trade the Shares on the Exchange is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act,
The Commission further believes that the proposal to list and trade the Shares is reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be necessary to price the Shares appropriately and to prevent trading when a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be assured. The Commission notes that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio
The Exchange represents that the Shares are deemed to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities.
In support of this proposal, the Exchange has made additional representations, including:
(1) The Shares of each Fund will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600.
(2) The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions.
(3) Trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws and these procedures are adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and federal securities laws applicable to trading on the Exchange.
(4) Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Bulletin will discuss the following: (a) the procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Unit aggregations (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (b) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its Equity Trading Permit Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (c) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions when an updated Portfolio Indicative Value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (d) how information regarding the Portfolio Indicative Value and the Disclosed Portfolio is disseminated; (e) the requirement that Equity Trading Permit Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (f) trading information.
(5) For initial and/or continued listing, the Funds will be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the Act,
(6) A minimum of 100,000 Shares of each Fund will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange.
(7) Not more than 10% of the net assets of a Fund in the aggregate invested in exchange-traded equity securities shall consist of equity securities whose principal market is not a member of the ISG or party to a CSSA with the Exchange.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning whether Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice in the
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Commission staff estimates that approximately 4,500 respondents will submit an aggregate total 300,700 new fingerprint cards each year or approximately 67 fingerprint cards per year per registrant. The staff estimates that the average number of hours necessary to complete a fingerprint card is one-half hour. Thus, the total estimated annual burden is 150,350 hours for all respondents (300,700 times one-half hour). The average internal labor cost of compliance per hour is approximately $283. Therefore, the total estimated annual internal labor cost of compliance for all respondents is $42,549,050 (150,350 times $283).
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates 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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number. Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington DC 20549; or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17Ad-4(b) & (c) (17 CFR 240.17Ad-4) is used to document when transfer agents are exempt, or no longer exempt, from the minimum performance standards and certain recordkeeping provisions of the Commission's transfer agent rules. Pursuant to Rule 17Ad-4(b), if the Commission or the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) is the appropriate regulatory authority (“ARA”) for an exempt transfer agent, that transfer agent is required to prepare and maintain in its possession a notice certifying that it is exempt from certain performance standards and recordkeeping and record retention provisions of the Commission's transfer agent rules. This notice need not be filed with the Commission or OCC. If the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Fed”) or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) is the transfer agent's ARA, that transfer agent must prepare a notice and file it with the Fed or FDIC.
Rule 17Ad-4(c) sets forth the conditions under which a registered transfer agent loses its exempt status. Once the conditions for exemption no longer exist, the transfer agent, to keep the appropriate regulatory authority (“ARA”) apprised of its current status, must prepare, and file if the ARA for the transfer agent is the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“BGFRS”) or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), a notice of loss of exempt status under paragraph (c). The transfer agent then cannot claim exempt status under Rule 17Ad-4(b) again until it remains subject to the minimum performance standards for non-exempt transfer agents for six consecutive months.
ARAs use the information contained in the notices required by Rules 17Ad-4(b) and 17Ad-4(c) to determine whether a registered transfer agent qualifies for the exemption, to determine when a registered transfer agent no longer qualifies for the exemption, and to determine the extent to which that transfer agent is subject to regulation.
The Commission estimates that approximately 10 registered transfer agents each year prepare or file notices in compliance with Rules 17Ad-4(b) and 17Ad-4(c). The Commission estimates that each such registered transfer agent spends approximately 1.5 hours to prepare or file such notices for an aggregate total annual burden of 15 hours (1.5 hours times 10 transfer agents).
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information on respondents; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule 11.11, Routing to Away Trading Centers, to: (i) Delete references to the ROOC routing option; and (ii) update routing options IOCM and ICMT to reflect a recent proposed rule change by EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”) in which EDGX replaced the MidPoint Match Order with the MidPoint Peg Order.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.11, Routing to Away Trading Centers, to: (i) Delete references to the ROOC routing option; and (ii) update routing options IOCM and ICMT to reflect a recent proposed rule change by EDGX in which EDGX replaced the MidPoint Match Order with the MidPoint Peg Order.
Under Rule 11.11(g)(8), an order utilizing the ROOC routing option is designated by the User
Because few Users elect the ROOC routing option, the Exchange has determined that the current demand does not warrant the infrastructure and ongoing maintenance expenses required to support the product. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to delete the ROOC routing option under Rule 11.11(g)(8) as well as a reference to the ROOC routing option under Rule 11.11(g)(16). Users seeking to route orders to participate in the opening, re-opening, or closing process of a primary listing market may use alternative methods, such as connecting to those markets directly or through a third party service provider, or electing another routing option offered by the Exchange that enables a User to post an order to certain primary listing markets.
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rules 11.11(g)(11) and (12) to update routing options IOCM and ICMT to reflect a recent rule change by EDGX in which EDGX replaced the MidPoint Match Order with the MidPoint Peg Order.
On July 8, 2015, EDGX filed a proposed rule change with the Commission for immediate effectiveness to, among other things, replace the MidPoint Match Order with the MidPoint Peg Order.
The Exchange intends to implement the proposed changes to the descriptions of the IOCM and ICMT routing option immediately.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that this proposal will permit unfair discrimination among customers, brokers, or dealers because the ROOC routing option will no longer be available and the updates to the IOCM and ICMT routing options would apply to all Users equally. The Exchange has few Users electing the ROOC routing option and has determined that the current demand does not warrant the infrastructure and ongoing maintenance expense required to support the product. Routing through the Exchange is voluntary and alternative routing options offered by the Exchange as well as other methods remain available to Users that wish to route orders to participate in the opening, re-opening, or closing process of the primary listing market.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issues but rather avoid investor confusion by eliminating the ROOC routing option that is to be discontinued by the Exchange as well as update the IOCM and ICMT routing options in response to a recent proposed rule change by EDGX.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-44(f)(6) under the Act normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However, Rule 19b-44(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. Waiver of the 30-day operative delay would allow the Exchange to modify its rules in a timely manner by: (i) Eliminating a rule that accounts for a service the Exchange intends to discontinue; and (ii) updating its rules to accurately describe how orders utilizing those routing options function in light of the recent proposed rule change by EDGX, thereby avoiding potential investor confusion during the operative delay period. Based on the foregoing, the Commission believes the waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 18(c) and 18(i) of the Act and for an order pursuant to section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain registered closed-end management investment companies to issue multiple classes of units of beneficial interest (“Units”) with varying sales loads and to impose asset-based distribution and/or service fees, and contingent deferred sales loads (“CDSCs”).
AMG Pantheon Private Equity Fund, LLC (the “Feeder Fund”), AMG Pantheon Private Equity Master Fund, LLC (the “Master Fund”), Pantheon Ventures (US) LP (the “Adviser”) and AMG Distributors, Inc. (the “Placement Agent”).
The application was filed on July 25, 2014, and amended on December 30, 2014 and May 13, 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 applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on August 21, 2015, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants, c/o Mark Duggan, AMG Funds LLC, 800 Connecticut Avenue, Norwalk, Connecticut 06854.
Barbara T. Heussler, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6990 or Mary Kay Frech, 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 an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Feeder Fund and the Master Fund, each organized as a Delaware limited liability company, are registered under the Act as closed-end, non-diversified management investment companies. The Feeder Fund intends to invest substantially all of its assets in the Master Fund in reliance on section 12(d)(1)(E) of the Act. The Master Fund expects to pursue its investment objective by investing primarily in private equity investments. To maintain liquidity, the Master Fund will invest in exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) designed to track equity indexes and, to a lesser extent, in cash and short-term securities. In addition, the Master Fund may use derivative instruments, primarily equity options and swaps, for hedging purposes to help protect the value of its ETF investments.
2. The Adviser, a Delaware limited partnership, is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and serves as investment adviser to the Feeder Fund and the Master Fund. The Placement Agent, a broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“1934 Act”), acts as the principal underwriter of the Feeder Fund. Affiliated Managers Group, Inc., a publicly-traded company, indirectly owns a majority of the interests of the Adviser and indirectly owns 100% of the shares of the Placement Agent. The Placement Agent is under common control with the Adviser and is an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of the Adviser.
3. The Feeder Fund offers its Units
4. The Feeder Fund currently offers a single class of Units (the “Advisory Class Units”) at net asset value subject to an asset-based distribution and/or service fee (“Distribution and/or Service Fee”) pursuant to a distribution and service plan adopted in conformity with rule 12b-1 under the Act (a “Distribution and Service Plan”). The Feeder Fund proposes to offer continuously two additional classes of Units, each having its own expense structure (“Transactional Class Units” and “Institutional Class Units”), in addition to any additional classes of Units that may be offered in the future. The Transactional Class Units would be offered at net asset value and may (but would not necessarily) be subject to a front-end sales load and an annual asset-based Distribution and/or Service Fee. The Institutional Class Units would be offered at net asset value, and it is anticipated that they would not be subject to a front-end sales load or an annual asset-based Distribution and/or Service Fee. All the classes would be subject to minimum purchase requirements.
5. In order to provide a limited degree of liquidity to unitholders, the Feeder Fund may from time to time offer to repurchase Units at their then current net asset value pursuant to written tenders by unitholders in accordance with rule 13e-4 under the 1934 Act.
6. Applicants request that the order also apply to any other registered closed-end management investment company that conducts a continuous offering of its Units, existing now or in the future, for which the Adviser or the Placement Agent or any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Adviser or the Placement Agent acts as investment adviser or principal underwriter, and which provides periodic liquidity with respect to its Units through tender offers conducted in compliance with rule 13e-4 under the 1934 Act.
7. Applicants represent that the asset-based Distribution and/or Service Fees will comply with the provisions of rule 2830(d) of the Conduct Rules of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD Conduct Rule 2830”) as if that rule applied to the Feeder Fund.
8. The Feeder Fund will allocate all expenses incurred by it among the various classes of Units based on the respective net assets of the Feeder Fund attributable to each such class, except that the net asset value and expenses of each class will reflect the expenses associated with the Distribution and Service Plan of that class (if any), shareholder service fees attributable to a particular class, and any other incremental expenses of that class. Expenses of the Feeder Fund, allocated to a particular class of the Feeder Fund's Units, will be borne on a pro rata basis by each outstanding Unit of that class. Applicants state that the Feeder Fund will comply with the provisions of rule 18f-3 under the Act as if it were an open-end investment company.
9. The Feeder Fund may offer an exchange privilege or conversion feature on certain of its future classes of Units, and any such privilege or feature introduced in the future will comply with rule 11a-1, rule 11a-3, and rule18f-3 under the Act as if the Feeder Fund were an open-end investment company.
10. In the event the Feeder Fund imposes a CDSC, the applicants will comply with the provisions of rule 6c-10 under the Act, as if that rule applied to closed-end management investment companies. With respect to any waiver of, scheduled variation in, or elimination of the CDSC, the Feeder Fund will comply with rule 22d-1 under the Act and apply the CDSC uniformly to all unitholders of a given class.
1. Section 18(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that a closed-end investment company may not issue or sell any senior security if, immediately thereafter, the company has outstanding more than one class of senior security. Applicants state that the creation of multiple classes of Units of the Feeder Fund may be prohibited by section 18(c).
2. Section 18(i) of the Act provides that each share of stock issued by a registered management investment company will be a voting stock and have equal voting rights with every other outstanding voting stock. Applicants state that permitting multiple classes of Units of the Feeder Fund may violate section 18(i) of the Act because each class would be entitled to exclusive voting rights with respect to matters solely related to that class.
3. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security or transaction or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions from any provision of the Act, or from any rule under the Act, if and to the extent such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants request an exemption under section 6(c) from sections 18(c) and 18(i) to permit the Feeder Fund to issue multiple classes of Units.
4. Applicants submit that the proposed allocation of expenses and voting rights among multiple classes is equitable and will not discriminate against any group or class of unitholders. Applicants submit that the proposed arrangements would permit the Feeder Fund to facilitate the distribution of Units and provide investors with a broader choice of unitholder options. Applicants assert that the proposed closed-end investment company multiple class structure does not raise the concerns underlying section 18 of the Act to any greater degree than open-end investment companies' multiple class structures that are permitted by rule 18f-3 under the Act. Applicants state that the Feeder Fund will comply with the provisions of rule 18f-3 as if it were an open-end investment company.
5. Applicants believe that the requested relief meets the standards of section 6(c) of the Act. Rule 6c-10 under the Act permits open-end investment companies to impose CDSCs, subject to certain conditions. Applicants state that any CDSC imposed by the Feeder Fund will comply with rule 6c-10 under the Act as if the rule were applicable to closed-end investment companies. The Feeder Fund also will disclose CDSCs in accordance with the requirements of Form N-1A concerning CDSCs as if the Feeder Fund were an open-end investment company. Applicants further state that the Feeder Fund will apply the CDSC (and any waivers or scheduled variations of the CDSC) uniformly to all unitholders of a given class and consistently with the requirements of rule 22d-1 under the Act.
6. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit an affiliated person of a registered investment company or an affiliated person of such person, acting as principal, from participating in or effecting any transaction in connection with any joint enterprise or joint arrangement in which the investment company participates unless the Commission issues an order permitting the transaction. In reviewing applications submitted under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the participation of the investment company in a joint enterprise or joint arrangement is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act, and the extent to which the participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
7. Rule 17d-3 under the Act provides an exemption from section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 to permit open-end investment companies to enter into distribution arrangements pursuant to rule 12b-1 under the Act. Applicants request an order under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit the Feeder Fund to impose asset-based Distribution and/or Service Fees. Applicants have agreed to comply with rules 12b-1 and 17d-3 as if those rules applied to closed-end investment companies.
The Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following condition:
Applicants will comply with the provisions of rules 6c-10, 12b-1, 17d-3, 18f-3, 22d-1, and, where applicable, 11a-3 under the Act, as amended from time to time or replaced, as if those rules applied to closed-end management investment companies, and will comply with the NASD Conduct Rule 2830, as amended from time to time, as if that rule applied to all closed-end management investment companies.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
60-Day notice of submission of information collection approval from the Office of Management and Budget and request for comments.
As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, the Securities and Exchange Commission has submitted a Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR): “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery ” to OMB for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.).
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: the target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
Below is the projected average estimates for the next three years:
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates 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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
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.
Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Investment Company Act”) (15 U.S.C. 80a-1
Based on recent filings of notifications of registration on Form N-8A, we estimate that about 92 investment companies file such notifications each year. An investment company must only file a notification of registration on Form N-8A once. The currently approved average hour burden per investment company of preparing and filing a notification of registration on Form N-8A is one hour. Based on the Commission staff's experience with the requirements of Form N-8A and with disclosure documents generally—and considering that investment companies that are filing notifications of registration on Form N-8A simultaneously with the registration statement under the Investment Company Act are only required by Form N-8A to file a signed cover page—we continue to believe that this estimate is appropriate. Therefore, we estimate that the total annual hour burden to prepare and file notifications of registration on Form N-8A is 92 hours. The currently approved cost burden of Form N-8A is $443 per filing. We are updating the estimated cost burden to $449 to account for the effects of inflation. Therefore, we estimate that the total annual cost burden to associated with preparing and filing notifications of registration on Form N-8A is about $41,308.
Estimates of average burden hours and costs are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and are not derived from a comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. Compliance with the collection of information requirements of Form N-8A is mandatory. Responses to the collection of information will not be kept confidential. 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.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule 11.13, Order Execution and Routing, to: (i) Delete references to the ROOC routing option; and (ii) update routing options IOCM and ICMT to reflect a recent proposed rule change by EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”) in which EDGX replaced the MidPoint Match Order with the MidPoint Peg Order.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.13, Order Execution and Routing, to: (i) Delete references to the ROOC routing option; and (ii) update routing options IOCM and ICMT to reflect a recent proposed rule change by EDGX in which EDGX replaced the MidPoint Match Order with the MidPoint Peg Order.
Under Rule 11.13(b)(3)(N), an order utilizing the ROOC routing option is designated by the User
Because few Users elect the ROOC routing option, the Exchange has determined that the current demand does not warrant the infrastructure and ongoing maintenance expenses required to support the product. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to delete the ROOC routing option under 11.13(b)(3)(N). Users seeking to route orders to participate in the opening, re-opening, or closing process of a primary listing market may use alternative methods, such as connecting to those markets directly or through a third party service provider, or electing another routing option offered by the Exchange that enables a User to post an order to certain primary listing markets.
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rules 11.13(b)(3)(O) and (P) to update routing options IOCM and ICMT to reflect a recent rule change by EDGX in which EDGX replaced the MidPoint Match Order with the MidPoint Peg Order.
On July 8, 2015, EDGX filed a proposed rule change with the Commission for immediate effectiveness to, among other things, replace the MidPoint Match Order with the MidPoint Peg Order.
The Exchange intends to implement the proposed changes to the descriptions of the IOCM and ICMT routing option immediately.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that this proposal will permit unfair discrimination among customers, brokers, or dealers because the ROOC routing option will no longer be available and the updates to the IOCM and ICMT routing options would apply to all Users equally. The Exchange has few Users electing the ROOC routing option and has determined that the current demand does not warrant the infrastructure and ongoing maintenance expense required to support the product. Routing through the Exchange is voluntary and alternative routing options offered by the Exchange as well as other methods remain available to Users that wish to route orders to participate in the opening, re-opening, or closing process of the primary listing market.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issues but rather avoid investor confusion by eliminating the ROOC routing option that is to be discontinued by the Exchange as well as update the IOCM and ICMT routing options in response to a recent proposed rule change by EDGX.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. Waiver of the 30-day operative delay would allow the Exchange to modify its rules in a timely manner by: (i) Eliminating a rule that accounts for a service the Exchange intends to discontinue; and (ii) updating its rules to accurately describe how orders utilizing those routing options function in light of the recent proposed rule change by EDGX, thereby avoiding potential investor confusion during the operative delay period. Based on the foregoing, the Commission believes the waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below.
Section 22(e) of the Investment Company Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-22(e)] (“Act”) generally prohibits funds, including money market funds, from suspending the right of redemption, and from postponing the payment or satisfaction upon redemption of any redeemable security for more than seven days. The provision was designed to prevent funds and their investment advisers from interfering with the
Rule 22e-3 under the Act [17 CFR 270.22e-3] exempts money market funds from section 22(e) to permit them to suspend redemptions in order to facilitate an orderly liquidation of the fund. Specifically, rule 22e-3 permits a money market fund to suspend redemptions and postpone the payment of proceeds pending board-approved liquidation proceedings if: (i) The fund's board of directors, including a majority of disinterested directors, determines pursuant to § 270.2a-7(c)(8)(ii)(C) that the extent of the deviation between the fund's amortized cost price per share and its current net asset value per share calculated using available market quotations (or an appropriate substitute that reflects current market conditions) may result in material dilution or other unfair results to investors or existing shareholders; (ii) the fund's board of directors, including a majority of disinterested directors, irrevocably approves the liquidation of the fund; and (iii) the fund, prior to suspending redemptions, notifies the Commission of its decision to liquidate and suspend redemptions. Rule 22e-3 also provides an exemption from section 22(e) for registered investment companies that own shares of a money market fund pursuant to section 12(d)(1)(E) of the Act (“conduit funds”), if the underlying money market fund has suspended redemptions pursuant to the rule. A conduit fund that suspends redemptions in reliance on the exemption provided by rule 22e-3 is required to provide prompt notice of the suspension of redemptions to the Commission. Notices required by the rule must be provided by electronic mail, directed to the attention of the Director of the Division of Investment Management or the Director's designee.
Commission staff estimates that, on average, one money market fund would break the buck and liquidate every six years.
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms.
Compliance with the collection of information requirements of the rule is necessary to obtain the benefit of relying on the rule. 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 control number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days after this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 18(c) and 18(i) of the Act, under sections 6(c) and 23(c)(3) of the Act for an exemption from rule 23c-3 under the Act, and for an order pursuant to section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain registered closed-end management investment companies to issue multiple classes of shares (“Shares”) and to impose asset-based distribution and service fees and deferred sales charges (“Deferred Sales Charges”).
Little Harbor MultiStrategy Composite Fund (“MSC Fund”) and Little Harbor Advisors, LLC (“Investment Manager”).
The application was filed on December 2, 2014, and amended on April 10, 2015 and June 17, 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
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants, 30 Doaks Lane, Marblehead, MA 01945.
Deepak T. Pai, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6876 or Mary Kay Frech, 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 an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The MSC Fund is a Delaware statutory trust registered under the Act as a non-diversified, closed-end management investment company. The MSC Fund's investment objective is to realize long-term, risk-adjusted returns that are attractive as compared to those returns of traditional public equity and fixed-income markets. The MSC Fund may invest in U.S. and non-U.S. equities of companies with any market capitalization, fixed income securities of any quality, currencies, derivative instruments, futures contracts, options on futures contracts, and commodities.
2. The Investment Manager is a Delaware limited liability company and is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Investment Manager serves as the investment manager to the MSC Fund. Foreside Financial Services, LLC, a broker registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) currently serves as the principal underwriter of the MSC Fund (“Distributor”). In the future, the Distributor may be an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of the Investment Manager.
3. Applicants seek an order to permit the MSC Fund to issue multiple classes of Shares, with varying sales charges, and/or asset-based distribution and/or service fees, and Deferred Sales Charges.
4. Applicants request that the order also apply to any continuously offered registered closed-end management investment company existing now or in the future for which the Investment Manager or any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Investment Manager, or any successor in interest to such entity,
5. Since February 1, 2015, the MSC Fund has made a continuous public offering of its single, undesignated class of Shares (the “Initial Class”).
6. The MSC Fund anticipates that Initial Class Shares will continue to be offered at net asset value, subject to a front-end sales load in addition to the current service fee. The MSC Fund and each New Fund propose to offer at least two, and perhaps more than two, classes of Shares. Shares of each new class will be offered at net asset value, and may be subject to a front-end sales load or a Deferred Sales Charge, and/or an asset-based distribution and/or service fee, and/or any early repurchase fee (“Early Repurchase Fee”).
7. Applicants state that, from time to time, a Fund may create and offer additional classes of Shares of the Fund, or may vary the characteristics of its Shares in the following respects: (i) The amount of fees permitted by a Distribution Plan
10. Each Fund and its Distributor will comply with any requirements that the Commission or FINRA may adopt regarding disclosure at the point of sale and in transaction confirmations about the costs and conflicts of interest arising out of the distribution of open-end investment company shares, and regarding prospectus disclosure of sales charges and revenue sharing arrangements, as if those requirements applied to the Fund and the Distributor. In addition, each Fund or its Distributor will contractually require that any other distributor of the Fund's Shares comply with such requirements in connection with the distribution of Shares of the New Fund.
11. Each Fund will allocate all expenses incurred by it among its various classes of Shares based on the respective net assets of the Fund attributable to each such class, except
12. Applicants state that the Interval Funds may impose Deferred Sales Charges on Shares submitted for repurchase that have been held less than a specified period and may waive the Deferred Sales Charge for certain categories of shareholders or transactions to be established from time to time. Applicants represent that each Interval Fund would apply the Deferred Sales Charge (and any waivers or scheduled variations of the Deferred Sales Charge) uniformly to all shareholders in a given class and consistently with the requirements of rule 22d-1 under the Act as if the Interval Fund were an open-end investment company.
13. Each Interval Fund may offer its shareholders an exchange feature under which the shareholders of the Interval Fund may, in connection with such Interval Fund's repurchase offers, exchange their Shares of the Interval Fund for Shares of the same class of (i) registered open-end investment companies or (ii) other Funds that continuously offer their Shares at net asset value, and that in either case are in the Interval Fund's group of investment companies (collectively, “Other Funds”). Shares of an Interval Fund that are exchanged for Shares of Other Funds will be included as part of the amount of the repurchase offer amount for such Interval Fund as specified in rule 23c-3 under the Act. Any exchange option will comply with rule 11a-1, 11a-3 and rule 18f-3 under the Act, as if the Interval Fund were an open-end investment company. In complying with rule 11a-3, each Interval Fund will treat any Deferred Sales Charge as if it were a contingent deferred sales charge (“CDSC”).
1. Section 18(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that a closed-end investment company may not issue or sell any senior security if, immediately thereafter, the company has outstanding more than one class of senior security. Applicants state that the creation of multiple classes of Shares of the Funds may be prohibited by section 18(c), as a class may have priority over another class as to payment of dividends because shareholders of different classes would pay different fees and expenses.
2. Section 18(i) of the Act provides that each share of stock issued by a registered management investment company will be a voting stock and have equal voting rights with every other outstanding voting stock. Applicants state that multiple classes of Shares of the Funds may violate section 18(i) of the Act because each class would be entitled to exclusive voting rights with respect to matters solely related to that class.
3. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security or transaction or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions from any provision of the Act, or from any rule thereunder, if and to the extent such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants request an exemption under section 6(c) from sections 18(c) and 18(i) to permit the Funds to issue multiple classes of Shares.
4. Applicants submit that the proposed allocation of expenses and voting rights among multiple classes is equitable and will not discriminate against any group or class of shareholders. Applicants submit that the proposed arrangements would permit a Fund to facilitate the distribution of its Shares and provide investors with a broader choice of shareholder services. Applicants assert that the proposed closed-end investment company multiple class structure does not raise the concerns underlying section 18 of the Act to any greater degree than open-end investment companies' multiple class structures that are permitted by rule 18f-3 under the Act. Applicants state that each Fund will comply with the provisions of rule 18f-3 as if it were an open-end investment company.
1. Section 23(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that no registered closed-end investment company will purchase securities of which it is the issuer, except: (a) On a securities exchange or other open market; (b) pursuant to tenders, after reasonable opportunity to submit tenders given to all holders of securities of the class to be purchased; or (c) under such other circumstances as the Commission may permit by rules and regulations or orders for the protection of investors.
2. Rule 23c-3 under the Act permits a registered closed-end investment company (an “interval fund”) to make repurchase offers of between five and twenty-five percent of its outstanding shares at net asset value at periodic intervals pursuant to a fundamental policy of the interval fund. Rule 23c-3(b)(1) under the Act provides that an interval fund may deduct from repurchase proceeds only a repurchase fee, not to exceed two percent of the proceeds, that is paid to the interval fund and is reasonably intended to compensate the fund for expenses directly related to the repurchase.
3. Section 23(c)(3) provides that the Commission may issue an order that would permit a closed-end investment company to repurchase its shares in circumstances in which the repurchase 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.
4. Applicants request relief under sections 6(c), discussed above, and 23(c)(3) from rule 23c-3 to the extent necessary for the Interval Funds to impose a Deferred Sales Charge on Shares submitted for repurchase that have been held for less than a specified period.
5. Applicants state that the Deferred Sales Charge they intend to impose is functionally similar to a CDSC imposed by an open-end investment company under rule 6c-10 under the Act. Rule 6c-10 permits open-end investment companies to impose CDSCs, subject to certain conditions. Applicants note that rule 6c-10 is grounded in policy considerations supporting the employment of CDSCs where there are adequate safeguards for the investor and state that the same policy considerations support imposition of Deferred Sales Charges in the interval fund context. In addition, applicants state that Deferred Sales Charges may be necessary for the distributor to recover distribution costs. Applicants represent that any Deferred Sales Charge imposed by the Interval Funds will comply with rule 6c-10 under the Act as if that rule were applicable to closed-end investment companies. Each Interval Fund will disclose Deferred Sales Charges in accordance with the requirements of Form N-1A concerning CDSCs. Applicants further state that each Interval Fund will apply the Deferred Sales Charge (and any waivers or scheduled variations of the Deferred
1. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit an affiliated person of a registered investment company or an affiliated person of such person, acting as principal, from participating in or effecting any transaction in connection with any joint enterprise or joint arrangement in which the investment company participates unless the Commission issues an order permitting the transaction. In reviewing applications submitted under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the participation of the investment company in a joint enterprise or joint arrangement is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act, and the extent to which the participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
2. Rule 17d-3 under the Act provides an exemption from section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 to permit open-end investment companies to enter into distribution arrangements pursuant to rule 12b-1 under the Act. Applicants request an order under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to the extent necessary to permit the Fund to impose asset-based service and/or distribution fees. Applicants have agreed to comply with rules 12b-1 and 17d-3 as if those rules applied to closed-end investment companies, which they believe will resolve any concerns that might arise in connection with a Fund financing the distribution of its Shares through asset-based distribution fees.
3. For the reasons stated above, applicants submit that the exemptions requested under section 6(c) are necessary and appropriate in the public interest and are consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants further submit that the relief requested pursuant to section 23(c)(3) is consistent with the protection of investors and insures that applicants do not unfairly discriminate against any holders of the class or classes of securities to be purchased. Finally, applicants submit that the requested relief meets the standards for relief in section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 thereunder. Applicants state that the Funds' imposition of asset-based distribution fees is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act and does not involve participation on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following condition:
Applicants will comply with the provisions of rules 6c-10, 12b-1, 17d-3, 18f-3, and 22d-1 under the Act, as amended from time to time or replaced, as if those rules applied to closed-end management investment companies, and will comply with the NASD Conduct Rule 2830, as amended from time to time, as if that rule applied to all closed-end management investment companies.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 2 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
Commissioner Gallagher, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be: Settlement of injunctive actions; Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; Consideration of amicus participation; and Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 23c-3 (17 CFR 270.23c-3) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1
The requirement that the fund send a notification to shareholders of each offer is intended to ensure that a fund provides material information to shareholders about the terms of each offer. The requirement that copies be sent to the Commission is intended to enable the Commission to monitor the fund's compliance with the notification requirement. The requirement that the shareholder notification be attached to Form N-23c-3 is intended to ensure that the fund provides basic information necessary for the Commission to process the notification and to monitor the fund's use of repurchase offers. The requirement that the fund describe its current policy on repurchase offers and the results of recent offers in the annual shareholder report is intended to provide shareholders current information about the fund's repurchase policies and its recent experience. The requirement that the board approve and review written procedures designed to maintain portfolio liquidity is intended to ensure that the fund has enough cash or liquid securities to meet its repurchase obligations, and that written procedures are available for review by shareholders and examination by the Commission. The requirement that the fund file advertisements and sales literature as if it were an open-end fund is intended to facilitate the review of these materials by the Commission or FINRA to prevent incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading disclosure about the special characteristics of a closed-end fund that makes periodic repurchase offers.
Based on staff experience, the Commission staff estimates that 21 funds make use of rule 23c-3 annually, including six funds that are relying upon rule 23c-3 for the first time. The Commission staff estimates that on average a fund spends 89 hours annually in complying with the requirements of the rule and Form N-23c-3, with funds relying upon rule 23c-3 for the first time incurring an additional one-time burden of 28 hours. The Commission therefore estimates the total annual burden of the rule's and form's paperwork requirements to be 2,037 hours. In addition to the burden hours, the Commission estimates that the average yearly cost to each fund that relies on rule 23c-3 to print and mail repurchase offers to shareholders is approximately $29,966.50. The Commission estimates total annual cost is therefore approximately $629,297.
Estimates of the average burden hours and costs are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. Compliance with the collection of information requirements of the rule and form is mandatory only for those funds that rely on the rule in order to repurchase shares of the fund. The information provided to the Commission on Form N-23c-3 will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is conducting the second year of the InnovateHER: Innovating for Women Challenge (the Challenge), pursuant to the America Competes Act, for entrepreneurs to create a product or service that has a measurable impact on the lives of women and families, has the potential for commercialization, and fills a need in the marketplace.
The Challenge launches on August 4, 2015. The initial round of the Challenge will take the form of local competitions that will be run across the country beginning August 5, 2015 and ending no later than December 2, 2015. The host organizations running the local competitions must select and submit one winner from each local competition to SBA, along with a Nomination package, no later than December 3, 2015. SBA will then select up to ten Finalists. The Top 3 Winners will be announced no later than March 17, 2016 following a live pitch competition.
Heather Young, Office of Entrepreneurial Development, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-7430,
1.
Contestants must develop a product or service that meets the following competition criteria:
• Has a measurable impact on the lives of women and families (30%);
• Has the potential for commercialization (40%); and
• Fills a need in the marketplace (30%)
2.
3.
Following the completion of the local competitions, each host organization will identify one winner that will advance to the semi-final round of the Challenge. For a winning entry that has been submitted by a team of competitors, the host organization must list the team's self-identified project leader as the winner who will advance to the semi-final round. No later than December 3, 2015, each host organization will submit a nomination package containing the winning individual/team's business plan and other required information to SBA, which will administer the semi-final and final rounds of the Challenge. Selection as a semi-finalist following a local competition is the only means of registering for the Challenge. All nominations will be screened by SBA for eligibility. Contestants cannot submit entries directly to SBA.
4.
For winning entries submitted by teams of competitors, prize money will be awarded to the self-identified project leader for distribution to the rest of the team at their discretion and independently from SBA.
5.
• The organization's official legal name, street address, city, state;
• Web site of the organization (if applicable);
• The name of the organization's designated Point Of Contact (POC) for the competition, his/her email address, and phone number.
SBA will evaluate all requests to host a local InnovateHER competition in its sole discretion and will confirm a host's participation in writing. Additionally, with some exceptions, organizations that wish to host an InnovateHER competition will be required to agree to the terms of a Co-sponsorship Agreement with the SBA that defines the scope of the relationship for the purposes of InnovateHER and outlines the co-promotion and marketing terms. SBA will notify prospective hosts if such agreement is required. SBA will reject any nomination package submitted to the SBA by an organization that has not been officially confirmed by SBA to participate in the InnovateHER Challenge.
Additionally, each host organization will determine the type of local competition, conducted in a manner that is consistent with these Challenge Rules, that will best identify the most innovative and entrepreneurial business ideas, including the type of application that individuals need to prepare in order to compete, and will publicize the competition locally. Host organizations should also notify SBA of the date and location of the local competitions for the purposes of publication at
(a) A single cover page detailing—
(i) The Name of the winning individual (in the case of a winning team, please provide the name of the team's self-identified project lead); Company name (if applicable); Product/Service Name; Company Address, City, State, and Place of Incorporation (if applicable); Product/Service Web site (if applicable); telephone number of winning individual; and his/her email address;
(ii) The host organization's official legal name, street address, city, state, designated POC, and his/her best contact number and email address (
(iii) A concise, two-sentence description of the product or service (
(b) A Business Plan from the winning individual/team (maximum length: 20 pages, including attachments).
(c) A signed Statement of Support prepared by the host organization that explains why the winner of the local competition best satisfied the competition criteria and presented the greatest potential for success (maximum length: 2 pages).
Each host organization is responsible for preparing the complete Nomination Package, including obtaining a copy of the relevant Business Plan from the winner and ensuring that the full package is timely submitted to the SBA via the
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 30 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to September 3, 2015.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Lisa M. Farrell, US Department of State, Office of Risk Analysis and Management, 2201 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20520; who may be reached on 202-647-6020 or at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Request for Public Comment.
The Federal Aviation Administration is requesting public comment on a request by the Upper Cumberland Regional Airport, Sparta, TN, to release land at the Upper Cumberland Regional Airport. The request consists of approximately 10.3 acres of property non-contiguous to the airport located on Breeding Swamp Road approximately 3 miles southeast of the airport and 36.84 acres of property non-contiguous to the airport on Franks Ferry Road approximately 13 miles southwest of the airport. This release will allow the property to be sold to serve as wetland mitigation for a projects unrelated to the airport. This action is taken under the provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21).
Comments must be received on or before September 3, 2015.
Documents are available for review at the Upper Cumberland Regional Airport, 750 Airport Road, Sparta, TN 38583; and the FAA Memphis Airports District Office, 2600 Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Suite 2250, Memphis, TN 38118-2482. Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or mailed to: Mr. Phillip J. Braden, Manager, Memphis Airports District Office, 2600 Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Suite 2250, Memphis, TN 38118-2482. Mr. Braden can be contacted at telephone number 901-322-8181.
In addition, a copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Jason Baker, Airport Manager at Upper Cumberland Regional Airport, 750 Airport Road, Sparta, TN 38583. Mr. Baker can be contacted at 931-739-7000.
Mr. Michael L. Thompson, Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Memphis Airports District Office, 2600, Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Suite 2250, Memphis, TN 38118-2482. The application may be reviewed in person at this same location, by appointment. Mr. Thompson can be contacted at 901-322-8188.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the request to release airport property at the Upper Cumberland Regional Airport, Sparta, TN under the provisions of AIR 21(49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2)).
On July 28, 2015, the FAA determined that the request to release property at Upper Cumberland Regional Airport meets the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA may approve the request, in
The following is a brief overview of the request:
The Upper Cumberland Regional Airport is proposing the release of two tracts of property consisting of 10.33 acres and 36.84 acres to allow the property to be used as wetland mitigation for projects in the area unrelated to the airport. These properties are non-contiguous to the airport and located on Breeding Swamp Road approximately 3 miles southeast of the airport and Franks Ferry Road approximately 13 miles southwest of the airport.
Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at the FAA office listed above under
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is issuing guidance on the procedures and process to petition the Secretary under 49 U.S.C. 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the Airport and Airways Improvement Act of 1982, as amended. Although this provision has been in effect since 1992, the FAA did not receive the first petition under this provision until 2010. This guidance is intended to provide detail and clarity about who may petition the Secretary, when such a petition may be filed, how the petition may be made, and the procedures and process to petition the Secretary under this Section of the Airport and Airways Improvement Act.
Written comments must be received on or before October 5, 2015.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-2836 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Daphne Fuller, Assistant Chief Counsel. Mailing address: Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591. Telephone: (202) 267-3199. Email address:
FAA requests comments, suggestions and recommendations that will assist the agency in assessing and understanding the potential effects and implications of providing guidance on the procedures for and process of the right to petition the Secretary under 49 U.S.C. Section 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii).
In 1982, Congress enacted the Airport and Airway Improvement Act (AAIA) (Pub. L. 97-248). Relevant portions of the AAIA are codified in 49 U.S.C. Chapter 471, Subchapter I, Airport Improvement. The AAIA, among other items, established the current-day Airport Improvement Program (AIP) that is administered by the FAA's Office of Airports. Through the AIP, the FAA provides grants to public agencies — and, in limited cases, to private airport owners and operators—for the planning and development of public-use airports that are included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). The current AIP program built on earlier grant programs that are funded through a variety of user fees and fuel taxes. For more information on the history of the AIP and predecessor grant programs, see
The AAIA also provides certain prerequisites and conditions that an airport sponsor must meet in order to be eligible for consideration of AIP funding. In 1992, Congress amended various provisions of the AAIA with the Airport and Airway Safety, Capacity, Noise Improvement, and Intermodal Transportation Act, Pub. L. 102-581. Section 113(b), Public Access and Participation with Respect to Airport Projects, amended Section 509(b)(6)(A) of the AAIA (49 U.S.C. 47106(c)(1)(A)) by inserting the following:
(ii) the sponsor of the project certifies to the Secretary that the airport management board either has voting representation from the communities where the project is located or has advised the communities that they have the right to petition the Secretary concerning a proposed project.
The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation has delegated the responsibility to respond to a petition under Section 47106 to the Administrator of the FAA, 49 CFR 1.83(a)(9). The Administrator has further delegated the authority to administer this provision to the Associate Administrator for the Office of Airports (ARP-1). Order 1100.154A.
After receiving a small number of submissions under this provision, the Associate Administrator for the Office of Airports has determined it would be helpful and appropriate to provide the public with more guidance on the procedures and processes associated with this provision:
The Secretary may approve an application under this subchapter for an airport development project involving the location of an airport or runway or a major runway extension only if the sponsor certifies to the Secretary that the airport management board
The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation has delegated the responsibility to respond to a petition under Section 47106 to the Administrator of the FAA. Accordingly, any petition under this statutory provision should be addressed to the Associate Administrator for the Office of Airports, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
The statute does not prescribe any specific format prescribed for the submission of a petition. The petition should be a concise statement describing the project to which the petitioner objects, and clearly indicating the petitioner's specific objection to the project. The petition must also include a description of the result the petitioner is seeking. The petition should normally not exceed ten (10) pages. Upon application from the petitioner, the Administrator will consider extending the length of a petition for a large, complex project. Petitions must be legible and must be signed by the petitioner(s), who must be a duly authorized representative(s) of the community (see Section III.D.4 of this
A petition filed under section 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii) should be filed only after the Airport Sponsor notifies a community of its right to file a petition.
Petitions to the Secretary pursuant to Section 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii) must be submitted within thirty (30) days after the FAA gives notice that the sponsor has presented evidence that the requirements of Section 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii) have been fulfilled. Although the environmental analysis and the grant decisions are separate processes and decision, grant-related findings that are preconditions of issuing a grant are often made in the environmental ROD. Typically, the FAA demonstrates that the sponsor has satisfied the requirements of Section 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii) in its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Generally, the FEIS will contain a certification from the Airport Sponsor either that each community in which the project is located has a voting member on its airport management board, or that each community in which the project is located has been advised of its right to petition the Secretary. Normally the Airport Sponsor will have notified each of the communities prior to the publication of an FEIS, allowing communities at least 30 days to prepare and file a petition.
For purposes of Section 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii), location of an airport means approval of an airport at a location where no airport exists. This definition is consistent with the definition of the term airport location approval found in FAA Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions (April 2006). Order 5050.4B defines airport location approval as approval of a new public use airport at a location where no airport exists. (Order 5050.4B, ¶¶ 9.p and 203). In interpreting Section 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii), it is appropriate to be consistent with other FAA interpretations of similar terms. Defining the term location of an airport consistently with the definition in the most current version of Order 5050.4B avoids confusion that could be caused by applying different definitions depending on the circumstances of the inquiry.
While other FAA documents have referred to the location of a runway, none have defined the term. Because the term is similar to the term “location of an airport,” it is appropriate to define the terms in a similar manner. For purposes of Section 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii), location of a runway refers to decisions approving the site of a new or relocated runway where a runway does not currently exist.
Order 5050.4B defines a major runway extension as one that creates a significant impact to an affected environmental resource (including noise), or one that permanently removes a relocated threshold.
The term community is not defined in the statute. In the enabling legislation, this provision was entitled “Public Participation With Respect to Airport Projects.” The term “community” will be defined as a jurisdictional authority, that is, a political subdivision of a state, such as a town, township, city, or county. Defining community as a jurisdictional authority is consistent with the context of Section 47106(c). For example, in subsection (A)(i) the statute speaks of “objectives of any planning that the community has carried out.” Typically, only political subdivisions of a state, such as those described above, would have planning authority. Similarly, in the FAA's experience, only a jurisdictional authority or political subdivision would be considered for voting representation on the airport's governing authority. It is only in the absence of such voting representation of a jurisdictional authority or political subdivision that
Defining community as a jurisdictional authority or political subdivision is also consistent with the definition of community in Order 5050.4B, ¶1203(b)(1).
Accordingly, only a political subdivision of a state that enjoys general jurisdiction, or a Tribal government meets the definition of community in this context. Political subdivisions of a state that have a specific, substantive authority, such as water districts or school districts, do not adequately represent the interests of the community at large. They are not required to balance the interests of the whole community on a wide range of issues. Rather, they seek to promote their specific substantive interest. Additionally, water districts or school districts would not normally be invited to sit on an airport management board. Thus, only a political subdivision of a state which enjoys general jurisdiction is a community entitled to file a petition under Section 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii).
Finally, under the statute, a community is only eligible to petition under Section 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii) if the project is located in the community. If land is disturbed in the community, then the project is considered to be located in that community. The courts have also provided instruction on when a project is located in a community. In
There are currently ten states that participate in the FAA's State Block Grant Program (SBGP). Under the program, the State agency (usually the aviation division of the state Department of Transportation) assumes responsibility for administering AIP grants and if applicable, discretionary grants for non-primary airports. See 49 U.S.C. Section 47128. As part of the responsibility, the state assumes various responsibilities for the FAA including reviewing and approving proposed changes to the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) and compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The FAA interprets 49 U.S.C. Section 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii) as not being applicable to a project approved and administered as part of a state block grant. The plain language of this statutory provision states that this Section is triggered when a proponent submits a project grant application to the FAA. In the case of the SBGP, no such request is made as the funds are given to the states as a block and the state assumes responsibility for administering those funds. Participants in the SBGP are required to engage communities according to FAA guidance and to circulate the draft EA if warranted. Some who have sought to use this provision have argued that it should apply to State Block Grant projects. The FAA invites comments on this interpretation.
The FAA will provide a written response to a petition to the Secretary. The FAA may respond by outlining the issues raised in the petition and providing its responses either within the environmental record of decision, or it may elect to respond in a separate document.
49 U.S.C. 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii), 14 CFR part 1.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of Availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321
Copies of the ROD may be viewed during regular business hours at the following locations:
1. Federal Aviation Administration Airports Division, Suite 315, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057.
2. Federal Aviation Administration, Airports District Office, Suite 224, 26805 East 68th Avenue, Denver, CO 80249.
3. San Juan County Courthouse, County Executive Office, 117 S. Main, Monticello, Utah 84535.
The ROD will also be available on the following Web site:
Janell Barrilleaux, Environmental Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration Airports Division, Northwest Mountain Region, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057. Mrs. Barrilleaux may be contacted during business hours at (425) 227-2611 (phone), (425) 227-1600 (fax), or via email at
The Halls Crossing replacement airport was originally proposed in 1966 due to the inadequacy of the existing Halls Crossing airstrip. After completion of numerous planning studies, the Federal Aviation Administration completed an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (June, 1990) with the cooperation of the National Park Service (NPS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). A Record of Decision (ROD) was issued in August 1990 approving the development of what is now named the Cal Black Memorial Airport. Concurrently, the BLM approved an amendment of a land plan which allowed the conveyance of land to San Juan County for the construction of the new airport.
In 1990, the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA),
We therefore REVERSE the BLM's plan amendment and the transfer of land. We REMAND for further proceedings to determine whether the land should be retained under BLM control and management or reconveyed to San Juan County under a newly proposed land use plan amendment. In the case of the FAA, the airport has already been built. This does not mean that a remand would be meaningless, however. On remand, the FAA should re-analyze the impact of the airport under section 4(f) and section 2208.
In response to the court remand, FAA, in cooperation with BLM and NPS prepared a Supplemental EIS (SEIS).
The SEIS described potential environmental consequences that could result from the continued operation of the Cal Black Memorial Airport to resources located within the Project Area. Direct effects of the new airport (its construction) as well as indirect effects (airport operations) were identified in the 1990 FEIS. The SEIS provided further evaluation of actual and potential aircraft noise impacts, as well as Section 4(f) impacts and cumulative impacts. Evaluation of noise impacts focused exclusively on the effect of aircraft noise on GCNRA and surrounding lands. Chapter III, Environmental Consequences, presents the analysis for noise impacts, Section 4(f) impacts, and Cumulative Effects resulting from the operation of the Cal Black Memorial Airport.
The FAA has determined, based on the noise analysis conducted for the SEIS that as there are no significant impacts related to the continued operation of the Cal Black Memorial Airport, there is no need for any mitigation measures under either Section 4(f) or Section 2208.
In addition, the FAA has confirmed that the ROD for the 1990 EIS included the FAA determinations made for the project based upon evidence set forth in the FEIS, public input, and the supporting administrative record. These determinations are not changed by any new information developed for this SEIS.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of request to release airport property.
The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the land release at the Morgantown Municipal Airport, Morgantown, WV, under the provision 49 U.S.C. 47125(a).
Comments must be received on or before September 3, 2015.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the following address: Glen Kelly, Assistant City Manager, City of Morgantown, Sponsor for Morgantown Municipal Airport, 389 Spruce Street, Morgantown, WV, 304-291-7461, and at the FAA Beckley Airports Field Office: Matthew DiGiulian, Manager, Beckley Airports Field Office, 176 Airport Circle, Room 101, Beaver, WV 25813, (304) 252-6216.
Connie Boley-Lilly, Airports Program Specialist, Beckley Airports Field Office, location listed above.
The request to release airport property may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA invites public comment on the request to release property at the Morgantown Municipal Airport under the provisions of Section 47125(a) of Title 49 U.S.C. On July 21, 2015, the FAA determined that the request to release property at the Morgantown Municipal Airport (MGW), WV, submitted by the City of Morgantown, Sponsor for the Morgantown Municipal Airport, met the procedural requirements.
The following is a brief overview of the request:
The Morgantown Municipal Airport is proposing the release of approximately 95.70 acres of fee simple release to permit the transfer of such Property to the Monongalia County Development Authority (“MCDA”). Thereafter, “MCDA” will construct, or cause the construction, and operate, or cause the operation, of a Business Park on the Property. The Property to which this request relates is not a viral part of, or necessary for, the Sponsor's operation and development of Morgantown Municipal Airport (MGW). Therefore, it has been determined by the Sponsor that the most productive use of the Property is commercial development subsequent to its transfer to the “MCDA”. The development of the Property demonstrates that significant private investment can occur at MGW and shall serve to establish quality standards for future investments. The release and transfer of this property will allow the Sponsor to develop the roadway and utilities which will benefit this property, the hangar site, and the landside development site. This release will enhance the development of private aviation and commercial development of the east side of the airport.
Any person may inspect the request by appointment at the FAA office address listed above. Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed lease. All comments will be considered by the FAA to the extent practicable.
Issued in Beaver, West Virginia, July 21, 2015.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces that it is reviewing a proposed noise compatibility program that was submitted for Laughlin/Bullhead International Airport under the provisions of Title 49 United States Code, Section 47501
Jared M. Raymond, Airport Planner, Phoenix Airports District Office, Phoenix, Arizona, (602) 792-1072. Comments on the proposed noise compatibility program should also be submitted to the above office.
This notice announces that the FAA is reviewing a proposed noise compatibility program for Laughlin/Bullhead International Airport which will be approved or disapproved on or before January 18, 2016. This notice also announces the availability of this program for public review and comment.
An airport operator who has submitted noise exposure maps that are found by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150, promulgated pursuant to the Act, may submit a noise compatibility program for FAA approval which sets forth the measures the operator has taken or proposes to reduce existing non-compatible uses and prevent the introduction of additional non-compatible uses.
The FAA has formally received the noise compatibility program for Laughlin/Bullhead International Airport, effective on July 23, 2015. The airport operator has requested that the FAA review this material and that the noise mitigation measures, to be implemented jointly by the airport and surrounding communities, be approved as a noise compatibility program under section 47504 of the Act. Preliminary review of the submitted material indicates that it conforms to FAR Part 150 requirements for the submittal of noise compatibility programs, but that further review will be necessary prior to approval or disapproval of the program. The formal review period, limited by law to a maximum of 180 days, will be completed on or before January 18, 2016.
The FAA's detailed evaluation will be conducted under the provisions of 14 CFR part 150, Section 150.33. The primary considerations in the evaluation process are whether the proposed measures may reduce the level of aviation safety or create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, and whether they are reasonably consistent with obtaining the goal of reducing existing non-compatible land uses and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses.
Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed program with specific reference to these factors. All comments relating to these factors, other than those properly addressed to local land use authorities, will be considered by the FAA to the extent practicable. Copies of the noise exposure maps and the proposed noise compatibility program are available for examination at the following locations during normal business hours:
Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the heading,
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice provides information regarding FHWA's finding that a Buy America waiver is appropriate for the obligation of Federal-aid funds for 57 State projects involving the acquisition of vehicles and equipment on the condition that they be assembled in the U.S.
The effective date of the waiver is August 5, 2015.
For questions about this notice, please contact Mr. Gerald Yakowenko, FHWA Office of Program Administration, 202-366-1562, or via email at
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from the
This notice provides information regarding FHWA's finding that a Buy America waiver is appropriate for the obligation of Federal-aid funds for 57 State projects involving the acquisition of vehicles (including sedans, vans, pickups, trucks, buses, and street sweepers) and equipment (such as Bridge snooper truck and trail grooming equipment) on the condition that they be assembled in the U.S. The waiver would apply to approximately 349 vehicles. The requests, available at
Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, section 635.410 requires that steel or iron materials (including protective coatings) that will be permanently incorporated in a Federal-aid project must be manufactured in the U.S. For FHWA, this means that all the processes that modified the chemical content, physical shape or size, or final finish of the material (from initial melting and mixing, continuing through the bending and coating) occurred in the U.S. The statute and regulations create a process for granting waivers from the Buy America requirements when its application would be inconsistent with the public interest or when satisfactory quality domestic steel and iron products are not sufficiently available. In 1983, FHWA determined that it was both in the public interest and consistent with the legislative intent to waive Buy America for manufactured products other than steel manufactured products. However, FHWA's national waiver for manufactured products does not apply to the requests in this notice because they involve predominately steel and iron manufactured products. The FHWA's Buy America requirements do not have special provisions for applying Buy America to “rolling stock” such as vehicles or vehicle components (see 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(2)(C), 49 CFR 661.11, and 49 U.S.C. 24405(a)(2)(C) for examples of Buy America rolling stock provisions for other DOT agencies).
Based on all the information available to the agency, FHWA concludes that there are no domestic manufacturers that produce the vehicles and vehicle components identified in this notice in such a way that their steel and iron elements are manufactured domestically. The FHWA's Buy America requirements were tailored to the types of products that are typically used in highway construction, which generally meet the requirement that steel and iron materials be manufactured domestically. In today's global industry, vehicles are assembled with iron and steel components that are manufactured all over the world. The FHWA is not aware of any domestically produced vehicle on the market that meets FHWA's Buy America requirement to have all its iron and steel be manufactured exclusively in the U.S. For example, the Chevrolet Volt, which was identified by many commenters in a November 21, 2011,
In accordance with Division K, section 122 of the “Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015” (Pub. L. 113-235), FHWA published a notice of intent to issue a waiver on its Web site at
Based on FHWA's conclusion that there are no domestic manufacturers that can produce the vehicles and equipment identified in this notice in such a way that steel and iron materials are manufactured domestically, and after consideration of the comments received, FHWA finds that application of FHWA's Buy America requirements to these products is inconsistent with the public interest (23 U.S.C. 313(b)(1) and 23 CFR 635.410(c)(2)(i)). However, FHWA believes that it is in the public interest and consistent with the Buy America requirements to impose the condition that the vehicles and the vehicle components be assembled in the U.S. Requiring final assembly to be performed in the U.S. is consistent with past guidance to FHWA Division Offices on manufactured products (see Memorandum on Buy America Policy Response, Dec. 22, 1997,
In accordance with the provisions of section 117 of the “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Technical Corrections Act of 2008” (Pub. L. 110-244), FHWA is providing this notice of its finding that a public interest waiver of Buy America requirements is appropriate on the condition that the vehicles and equipment identified in the notice be assembled in the U.S. The FHWA invites public comment on this finding for an additional 15 days following the effective date of the finding. Comments may be submitted to FHWA's Web site via the link provided to the waiver page noted above.
23 U.S.C. 313; Pub. L. 110-161, 23 CFR 635.410.
In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated June 24, 2015, Florida East Coast Railway (FECR) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part
FECR seeks to shield reporting employees and the railroad from mandatory punitive sanctions that would otherwise arise as provided in 49 CFR 240.117(e)(1)-(4); 240.305(a)(l)-(4) and (a)(6); 240.307; 242.403(b), (c), (e)(l)-(4), (e)(6)-(11), (f)(l)-(2); and 242.407. The C
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by September 18, 2015 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
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 September 3, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestion 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 calling (202) 927-5331, email at
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that the Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation (Committee) will meet on September 14-15, 2015, at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 425 Eye Street NW., Washinginton, DC 20001. The Committee will meet in the Fourth Floor Conference Room 4E400. The sessions will begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 4:30 p.m. each day. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the maintenance and periodic readjustment of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. The Committee is to assemble and review relevant information relating to the nature and character of disabilities arising during service in the Armed Forces, provide an ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of the rating schedule, and give advice on the most appropriate means of responding to the needs of Veterans relating to disability compensation.
The Committee will receive briefings on issues related to compensation for Veterans with service-connected disabilities and other VA benefits programs. Time will be allocated for receiving public comments. Public comments will be limited to three minutes each. Individuals wishing to make oral statements before the Committee will be accommodated on a
The public may submit written statements for the Committee's review to Dr. Ioulia Vvedenskaya, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration, Compensation Service, Policy Staff (211C), 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420 or email at
Notice.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is seeking nominees to be considered for membership on the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans (Committee) for the 2015 membership cycle. The Committee is authorized by 38 U.S.C. 542 (the statute), to provide advice to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Secretary) on the administration of VA's benefits and services (health care, rehabilitation benefits, compensation, outreach, and other relevant programs) for women Veterans. In accordance with the statute and the Committee's current charter, the majority of the membership shall consist of non-Federal employees appointed by the Secretary from the general public, serving as special government employees. The Committee provides a Congressionally-mandated report to the Secretary each even-numbered year, which includes: An assessment of the needs of women Veterans, with respect to compensation, health care, rehabilitation, outreach, and other benefits and programs administered by VA; a review of the programs and activities of VA designed to meet such needs; and other recommendations (including recommendations for administrative and legislative action), as the Committee considers appropriate. The Committee reports to the Secretary, through the Director of the Center for Women Veterans.
The Secretary appoints Committee members, and determines the length of terms in which Committee members serve. A term of service for any member may not exceed 3 years. The Secretary can reappoint members for additional terms. Each year, there are several vacancies on the Committee, as members' terms expire.
Self-nominations and nominations of non-Veterans are accepted. Any letters of nomination from organizations or other individuals should accompany the package when it is submitted.
In accordance with OMB guidance, federally registered lobbyists may not serve on Federal advisory committees in their individual capacity. Additional information regarding this issue can be found at
The Committee is currently comprised of 12 members. In accordance with the statute, the Committee consists of members appointed by the Secretary from the general public, including: Representatives of women Veterans; individuals who are recognized authorities in fields pertinent to the needs of women Veterans, including the gender specific health-care needs of women; representatives of both female and male Veterans with service-connected disabilities, including at least one female Veteran with a service-connected disability and at least one male Veteran with a service-connected disability; and women Veterans who are recently separated from service in the Armed Forces.
The Committee meets at least two times annually, which may include a site visit to a VA field location. In accordance with Federal Travel Regulation, VA will cover travel expenses—to include per diem—for all members of the Committee, for any travel associated with official Committee duties. A copy of the Committee's most recent charter and a list of the current membership can be found at
The Department makes every effort to ensure that the membership of its advisory committees is fairly balanced, in terms of points of view represented. In the review process, consideration is given to nominees' potential to address the Committee's demographic needs (regional representation, race/ethnicity representation, professional expertise, war era service, gender, former enlisted or officer status, branch of service, etc.). Other considerations to promote a balanced membership include longevity of military service, significant deployment experience, ability to handle complex issues, experience running large organizations, and ability to contribute to the gender-specific health care and benefits needs of women Veterans.
Nomination packages must be typed (12 point font) and include: (1) A cover letter from the nominee, and (2) a current resume that is no more than four pages in length. The cover letter must summarize: The nominees' interest in serving on the committee and contributions she/he can make to the work of the committee; any relevant Veterans service activities she/he is currently engaged in; the military branch affiliation and timeframe of military service (if applicable). To promote a balanced membership, please provide information about your personal and professional qualifications and background that would give you a diverse perspective on women Veterans matters. Finally, please include in the cover letter the nominee's complete contact information (name, address, email address, and phone number); and a statement confirming that she/he is not a Federally-registered lobbyist. The resume should show professional work experience, and Veterans service involvement, especially service that involves women Veterans' issues.
Nominations for membership on the Committee must be received by August 31, 2015, no later than 4:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time. Packages received after this time will not be considered for the current membership cycle. All nomination packages should be sent to the Advisory Committee Management Office by email (recommended) or mail. Please see contact information below.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before October 5, 2015.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 632-8924 or FAX (202) 632-8925.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-21), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
(b) The Director of ONAP shall annually report to the President on the implementation of the Updated Strategy, including progress in meeting key targets and taking key actions identified in the Updated Strategy and the Federal Action Plan, an annual guidepost developed by ONAP in conjunction with agencies, designed to implement new efforts to address the domestic HIV/AIDS epidemic.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Final rule.
This final rule updates the payment rates used under the prospective payment system (PPS) for skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) for fiscal year (FY) 2016. In addition, it specifies a SNF all-cause all-condition hospital readmission measure, as well as adopts that measure for a new SNF Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program, and includes a discussion of SNF VBP Program policies we are considering for future rulemaking to promote higher quality and more efficient health care for Medicare beneficiaries. Additionally, this final rule will implement a new quality reporting program for SNFs as specified in the Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation Act of 2014 (IMPACT Act). It also amends the requirements that a long-term care (LTC) facility must meet to qualify to participate as a skilled nursing facility (SNF) in the Medicare program, or a nursing facility (NF) in the Medicaid program, by establishing requirements that implement the provision in the Affordable Care Act regarding the submission of staffing information based on payroll data.
Penny Gershman, (410) 786-6643, for information related to SNF PPS clinical issues (excluding any issues raised in section III.D. of this final rule).
John Kane, (410) 786-0557, for information related to the development of the payment rates and case-mix indexes.
Kia Sidbury, (410) 786-7816, for information related to the wage index.
Bill Ullman, (410) 786-5667, for information related to level of care determinations, consolidated billing, and general information.
Shannon Kerr, (410) 786-0666, for information related to skilled nursing facility value-based purchasing.
Charlayne Van, (410) 786-8659, for information related to skilled nursing facility quality reporting.
Lorelei Chapman, (410) 786-9254, for information related to staffing data collection.
As discussed in the FY 2016 SNF PPS proposed rule (80 FR 22044), tables setting forth the Wage Index for Urban Areas Based on CBSA Labor Market Areas and the Wage Index Based on CBSA Labor Market Areas for Rural Areas are no longer published in the
Readers who experience any problems accessing any of these online SNF PPS wage index tables should contact Kia Sidbury at (410) 786-7816.
To assist readers in referencing sections contained in this document, we are providing the following Table of Contents.
A. Purpose
B. Summary of Major Provisions
C. Summary of Cost and Benefits
A. Statutory Basis and Scope
B. Initial Transition for the SNF PPS
C. Required Annual Rate Updates
In addition, because of the many terms to which we refer by acronym in this final rule, we are listing these abbreviations and their corresponding terms in alphabetical order below:
This final rule updates the SNF prospective payment rates for FY 2016 as required under section 1888(e)(4)(E) of the Social Security Act (the Act). It also responds to section 1888(e)(4)(H) of the Act, which requires the Secretary to provide for publication in the
In accordance with sections 1888(e)(4)(E)(ii)(IV) and 1888(e)(5) of the Act, the federal rates in this final rule reflect an update to the rates that we published in the SNF PPS final rule for FY 2015 (79 FR 45628), which reflects the SNF market basket index as adjusted by the applicable forecast error correction and by the multifactor productivity adjustment for FY 2016. We are also finalizing a SNF all-cause all-condition hospital readmission measure under section 1888(g)(1) of the
For payment determinations beginning with FY 2018, we are adopting measures meeting three quality domains specified in section 1899B(c)(1) of the Act: Functional status, skin integrity, and incidence of major falls.
In addition, we are adding new language at 42 CFR, part 483 to implement section 1128I(g) of the Act. Specifically, beginning on July 1, 2016, long-term care (LTC) facilities that participate in Medicare or Medicaid will be required to submit electronically direct care staffing information (including information for agency and contract staff) based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data in a uniform format.
As amended by section 4432 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA, Pub. L. 105-33), section 1888(e) of the Act provides for the implementation of a PPS for SNFs. This methodology uses prospective, case-mix adjusted per diem payment rates applicable to all covered SNF services defined in section 1888(e)(2)(A) of the Act. The SNF PPS is effective for cost reporting periods beginning on or after July 1, 1998, and covers all costs of furnishing covered SNF services (routine, ancillary, and capital-related costs) other than costs associated with approved educational activities and bad debts. Under section 1888(e)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, covered SNF services include post-hospital extended care services for which benefits are provided under Part A, as well as those items and services (other than a small number of excluded services, such as physician services) for which payment may otherwise be made under Part B and which are furnished to Medicare beneficiaries who are residents in a SNF during a covered Part A stay. A comprehensive discussion of these provisions appears in the May 12, 1998 interim final rule (63 FR 26252). In addition, a detailed discussion of the legislative history of the SNF PPS is available online at
Section 215(a) of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA, Pub. L. 113-93, enacted on April 1, 2014), added section 1888(g) to the Act, requiring the Secretary to specify certain quality measures for the SNF setting. Additionally, section 215(b) of PAMA added section 1888(h) to the Act, requiring the Secretary to implement a VBP program for SNFs. Finally, section 2(a) of the IMPACT Act added section 1899B to the Act that, among other things, requires SNFs to report standardized data for measures in specified quality and resource use domains. In addition, the IMPACT Act added section 1888(e)(6) to the Act, which requires the Secretary to implement a QRP for SNFs, under which SNFs that do not report certain data will receive a reduction in their payments under the SNF PPS of 2 percentage points for FYs beginning with FY 2018.
Under sections 1888(e)(1)(A) and 1888(e)(11) of the Act, the SNF PPS included an initial, three-phase transition that blended a facility-specific rate (reflecting the individual facility's historical cost experience) with the federal case-mix adjusted rate. The transition extended through the facility's first three cost reporting periods under the PPS, up to and including the one that began in FY 2001. Thus, the SNF PPS is no longer operating under the transition, as all facilities have been paid at the full federal rate effective with cost reporting periods beginning in FY 2002. As we now base payments for SNFs entirely on the adjusted federal per diem rates, we no longer include adjustment factors under the transition related to facility-specific rates for the upcoming FY.
Section 1888(e)(4)(E) of the Act requires the SNF PPS payment rates to be updated annually. The most recent annual update occurred in a final rule that set forth updates to the SNF PPS payment rates for FY 2015 (79 FR 45628, August 5, 2014).
Section 1888(e)(4)(H) of the Act specifies that we provide for publication annually in the
• The unadjusted federal per diem rates to be applied to days of covered SNF services furnished during the upcoming FY.
• The case-mix classification system to be applied for these services during the upcoming FY.
• The factors to be applied in making the area wage adjustment for these services.
Along with other revisions discussed later in this preamble, this final rule provides the required annual updates to the per diem payment rates for SNFs for FY 2016.
In response to the publication of the FY 2016 SNF PPS proposed rule, we received 53 timely public comments from individuals, providers, corporations, government agencies, private citizens, trade associations, and major organizations. The following are brief summaries of each proposed provision, a summary of the public comments that we received related to that proposal, and our responses to the comments.
In addition to the comments we received on specific proposals contained within the proposed rule (which we address later in this final rule), commenters also submitted the following, more general observations on the SNF PPS and SNF care generally. A discussion of these comments, along with our responses, appears below.
Under section 1888(e)(4) of the Act, the SNF PPS uses per diem federal payment rates based on mean SNF costs in a base year (FY 1995) updated for inflation to the first effective period of the PPS. We developed the federal payment rates using allowable costs from hospital-based and freestanding SNF cost reports for reporting periods beginning in FY 1995. The data used in developing the federal rates also incorporated a Part B add-on, which is an estimate of the amounts that, prior to the SNF PPS, would have been payable under Part B for covered SNF services furnished to individuals during the course of a covered Part A stay in a SNF.
In developing the rates for the initial period, we updated costs to the first effective year of the PPS (the 15-month period beginning July 1, 1998) using a SNF market basket index, and then standardized for geographic variations in wages and for the costs of facility differences in case mix. In compiling the database used to compute the federal payment rates, we excluded those providers that received new provider exemptions from the routine cost limits, as well as costs related to payments for exceptions to the routine cost limits. Using the formula that the BBA prescribed, we set the federal rates at a level equal to the weighted mean of freestanding costs plus 50 percent of the difference between the freestanding mean and weighted mean of all SNF costs (hospital-based and freestanding) combined. We computed and applied separately the payment rates for facilities located in urban and rural areas, and adjusted the portion of the federal rate attributable to wage-related
Section 1888(e)(5)(A) of the Act requires us to establish a SNF market basket index that reflects changes over time in the prices of an appropriate mix of goods and services included in covered SNF services. Accordingly, we have developed a SNF market basket index that encompasses the most commonly used cost categories for SNF routine services, ancillary services, and capital-related expenses. We use the SNF market basket index, adjusted in the manner described below, to update the federal rates on an annual basis. In the SNF PPS final rule for FY 2014 (78 FR 47939 through 47946), we revised and rebased the market basket, which included updating the base year from FY 2004 to FY 2010.
For the FY 2016 proposed rule, the FY 2010-based SNF market basket growth rate was estimated to be 2.6 percent, which was based on the IHS Global Insight, Inc. (IGI) first quarter 2015 forecast with historical data through fourth quarter 2014. However, as discussed in the FY 2016 SNF PPS proposed rule (80 FR 22049), we proposed that if more recent data become available (for example, a more recent estimate of the FY 2010-based SNF market basket and/or MFP adjustment), we would use such data, if appropriate, to determine the FY 2016 SNF market basket percentage change, labor-related share relative importance, forecast error adjustment, and MFP adjustment in this final rule. Since that time we have received an updated FY 2016 market basket percentage increase, which is based on the second quarter 2015 IHS Global Insight forecast of the FY 2010-based SNF market basket. The revised market basket growth rate is 2.3 percent. In section III.B.2.e. of this final rule, we discuss the specific application of this adjustment to the forthcoming annual update of the SNF PPS payment rates.
Section 1888(e)(5)(B) of the Act defines the SNF market basket percentage as the percentage change in the SNF market basket index from the midpoint of the previous FY to the midpoint of the current FY. For the federal rates set forth in this final rule, we use the percentage change in the SNF market basket index to compute the update factor for FY 2016. This is based on the IGI second quarter 2015 forecast (with historical data through the first quarter 2015) of the FY 2016 percentage increase in the FY 2010-based SNF market basket index for routine, ancillary, and capital-related expenses, which is used to compute the update factor in this final rule. As discussed in sections III.B.2.c. and III.B.2.d. of this final rule, this market basket percentage change is reduced by the applicable forecast error correction (as described in § 413.337(d)(2)) and by the multifactor productivity adjustment as required by section 1888(e)(5)(B)(ii) of the Act. Finally, as discussed in section II.B. of this final rule, we no longer compute update factors to adjust a facility-specific portion of the SNF PPS rates, because the initial three-phase transition period from facility-specific to full federal rates that started with cost reporting periods beginning in July 1998 has expired.
As discussed in the June 10, 2003 supplemental proposed rule (68 FR 34768) and finalized in the August 4, 2003, final rule (68 FR 46057 through 46059), the regulations at § 413.337(d)(2) provide for an adjustment to account for market basket forecast error. The initial adjustment for market basket forecast error applied to the update of the FY 2003 rate for FY 2004, and took into account the cumulative forecast error for the period from FY 2000 through FY 2002, resulting in an increase of 3.26 percent to the FY 2004 update. Subsequent adjustments in succeeding FYs take into account the forecast error from the most recently available FY for which there is final data, and apply the difference between the forecasted and actual change in the market basket when the difference exceeds a specified threshold. We originally used a 0.25 percentage point threshold for this purpose; however, for the reasons specified in the FY 2008 SNF PPS final rule (72 FR 43425, August 3, 2007), we adopted a 0.5 percentage point threshold effective for FY 2008 and subsequent FYs. As we stated in the final rule for FY 2004 that first issued the market basket forecast error adjustment (68 FR 46058, August 4, 2003), the adjustment will reflect both upward and downward adjustments, as appropriate.
For FY 2014 (the most recently available FY for which there is final data), the estimated increase in the market basket index was 2.3 percentage points, while the actual increase for FY 2014 was 1.7 percentage points, resulting in the actual increase being 0.6 percentage point lower than the estimated increase. Accordingly, as the difference between the estimated and actual amount of change in the market basket index exceeds the 0.5 percentage point threshold and because, in this instance, the estimated amount of change exceeded the actual amount of change, the FY 2016 market basket percentage change of 2.3 percent would be adjusted downward by the forecast error correction of 0.6 percentage point, resulting in a SNF market basket increase of 1.7 percent, before application of the productivity adjustment discussed in this section. Table 1 shows the forecasted and actual market basket amounts for FY 2014.
A discussion of the general comments that we received on the forecast error adjustment, and our responses to those comments, appears below.
Section 3401(b) of the Affordable Care Act requires that, in FY 2012 (and in subsequent FYs), the market basket percentage under the SNF payment system as described in section 1888(e)(5)(B)(i) of the Act is to be reduced annually by the productivity adjustment described in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) of the Act. Section 1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) of the Act, added by section 3401(a) of the Affordable Care Act, sets forth the definition of this productivity adjustment. The statute defines the productivity adjustment to be equal to the 10-year moving average of changes in annual economy-wide private nonfarm business multi-factor productivity (as projected by the Secretary for the 10-year period ending with the applicable FY, year, cost-reporting period, or other annual period) (the MFP adjustment). The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is the agency that publishes the official measure of private nonfarm business multifactor productivity (MFP). We refer readers to the BLS Web site at
MFP is derived by subtracting the contribution of labor and capital inputs growth from output growth. The projections of the components of MFP are currently produced by IGI, a nationally recognized economic forecasting firm with which CMS contracts to forecast the components of the market baskets and MFP. To generate a forecast of MFP, IGI replicates the MFP measure calculated by the BLS, using a series of proxy variables derived from IGI's U.S. macroeconomic models. In section III.F.3. of the FY 2012 SNF PPS final rule (76 FR 48527 through 48529), we identified each of the major MFP component series employed by the BLS to measure MFP as well as provided the corresponding concepts determined to be the best available proxies for the BLS series.
Beginning with the FY 2016 rulemaking cycle, the MFP adjustment is calculated using a revised series developed by IGI to proxy the aggregate capital inputs. Specifically, IGI has replaced the Real Effective Capital Stock used for Full Employment GDP with a forecast of BLS aggregate capital inputs recently developed by IGI using a regression model. This series provides a better fit to the BLS capital inputs as measured by the differences between the actual BLS capital input growth rates and the estimated model growth rates over the historical time period. Therefore, we are using IGI's most recent forecast of the BLS capital inputs series in the MFP calculations beginning with the FY 2016 rulemaking cycle. A complete description of the MFP projection methodology is available on our Web site at
According to section 1888(e)(5)(A) of the Act, the Secretary shall establish a SNF market basket index that reflects changes over time in the prices of an appropriate mix of goods and services included in covered SNF services. Section 1888(e)(5)(B)(ii) of the Act, added by section 3401(b) of the Affordable Care Act, requires that for FY 2012 and each subsequent FY, after determining the market basket percentage described in section 1888(e)(5)(B)(i) of the Act, the Secretary shall reduce such percentage by the productivity adjustment described in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) (which we refer to as the MFP adjustment). Section 1888(e)(5)(B)(ii) of the Act further states that the reduction of the market basket percentage by the MFP adjustment may result in the market basket percentage being less than zero for a FY, and may result in payment rates under section 1888(e) of the Act for a FY being less than such payment rates for the preceding FY. Thus, if the application of the MFP adjustment to the market basket percentage calculated under section 1888(e)(5)(B)(i) of the Act results in an MFP-adjusted market basket percentage that is less than zero, then the annual update to the unadjusted federal per diem rates under section 1888(e)(4)(E)(ii) of the Act would be negative, and such rates would decrease relative to the prior FY.
For the FY 2016 update, the MFP adjustment is calculated as the 10-year moving average of changes in MFP for the period ending September 30, 2016. In the FY 2016 SNF PPS proposed rule, this adjustment was calculated to be 0.6 percent. However, as discussed in the FY 2016 SNF PPS proposed rule (80 FR 22049), we proposed that if more recent data become available (for example, a more recent estimate of the FY 2010-based SNF market basket and/or MFP adjustment), we would use such data, if appropriate, to determine, among other things, the FY 2016 SNF market basket percentage change and the MFP adjustment in this final rule. Therefore, based on IGI's most recent second quarter 2015 forecast (with historical data through first quarter 2015), the MFP adjustment for FY 2016 is 0.5 percent. Consistent with section 1888(e)(5)(B)(i) of the Act and § 413.337(d)(2) of the regulations, the market basket percentage for FY 2016 for the SNF PPS is based on IGI's second quarter 2015 forecast of the SNF market basket update (2.3 percent) as adjusted by the forecast error adjustment (0.6 percentage point), and is estimated to be 1.7 percent. In accordance with section 1888(e)(5)(B)(ii) of the Act (as added by section 3401(b) of the Affordable Care Act) and § 413.337(d)(3), this market basket percentage is then reduced by the MFP adjustment (the 10-year moving average of changes in MFP for the period ending September 30, 2016) of 0.5 percent, which is calculated as described above and based on IGI's second quarter 2015 forecast. The
Sections 1888(e)(4)(E)(ii)(IV) and 1888(e)(5)(i) of the Act require that the update factor used to establish the FY 2016 unadjusted federal rates be at a level equal to the market basket index percentage change. Accordingly, we determined the total growth from the average market basket level for the period of October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015 to the average market basket level for the period of October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016. This process yields a percentage change in the market basket of 2.3 percent.
As further explained in section III.B.2.c. of this final rule, as applicable, we adjust the market basket percentage change by the forecast error from the most recently available FY for which there is final data and apply this adjustment whenever the difference between the forecasted and actual percentage change in the market basket exceeds a 0.5 percentage point threshold. Since the forecasted FY 2014 SNF market basket percentage change exceeded the actual FY 2014 SNF market basket percentage change (FY 2014 is the most recently available FY for which there is final data) by more than 0.5 percentage point, the FY 2016 market basket percentage change of 2.3 percent would be adjusted downward by the applicable difference, which for FY 2014 is 0.6 percent.
In addition, for FY 2016, section 1888(e)(5)(B)(ii) of the Act requires us to reduce the market basket percentage change by the MFP adjustment (the 10-year moving average of changes in MFP for the period ending September 30, 2016) of 0.5 percent, as described in section III.B.2.d. of this final rule. The resulting net SNF market basket update would equal 1.2 percent, or 2.3 percent less the 0.6 percentage point forecast error adjustment, less the 0.5 percentage point MFP adjustment. We proposed in the FY 2016 SNF PPS proposed rule (80 FR 22049) that if more recent data become available (for example, a more recent estimate of the FY 2010-based SNF market basket and/or MFP adjustment), we would use such data, if appropriate, to determine the FY 2016 SNF market basket percentage change, labor-related share relative importance, forecast error adjustment, and MFP adjustment in this final rule. As noted above, more recent data were used to update the market basket update and MFP adjustment in this final rule.
A discussion of the general comments that we received on the market basket update factor for FY 2016, and our responses to those comments, appears below.
Accordingly, for the reasons specified in this final rule and in the FY 2016 SNF PPS proposed rule (80 FR 22047 through 22049), we are applying the FY 2016 market basket increase factor, as adjusted by the forecast error correction and MFP adjustment as described above, in our determination of the FY 2016 SNF PPS unadjusted federal per diem rates. We used the SNF market basket, adjusted as described in this section, to adjust each per diem component of the federal rates forward to reflect the change in the average prices for FY 2016 from average prices for FY 2015. We would further adjust the rates by a wage index budget neutrality factor, described later in this
Under section 1888(e)(4)(G)(i) of the Act, the federal rate also incorporates an adjustment to account for facility case-mix, using a classification system that accounts for the relative resource utilization of different patient types. The statute specifies that the adjustment is to reflect both a resident classification system that the Secretary establishes to account for the relative resource use of different patient types, as well as resident assessment data and other data that the Secretary considers appropriate. In the interim final rule with comment period that initially implemented the SNF PPS (63 FR 26252, May 12, 1998), we developed the RUG-III case-mix classification system, which tied the amount of payment to resident resource use in combination with resident characteristic information. Staff time measurement (STM) studies conducted in 1990, 1995, and 1997 provided information on resource use (time spent by staff members on residents) and resident characteristics that enabled us not only to establish RUG-III, but also to create case-mix indexes (CMIs). The original RUG-III grouper logic was based on clinical data collected in 1990, 1995, and 1997. As discussed in the SNF PPS proposed rule for FY 2010 (74 FR 22208), we subsequently conducted a multi-year data collection and analysis under the Staff Time and Resource Intensity Verification (STRIVE) project to update the case-mix classification system for FY 2011. The resulting Resource Utilization Groups, Version 4 (RUG-IV) case-mix classification system reflected the data collected in 2006 through 2007 during the STRIVE project, and was finalized in the FY 2010 SNF PPS final rule (74 FR 40288) to take effect in FY 2011 concurrently with an updated new resident assessment instrument, version 3.0 of the Minimum Data Set (MDS 3.0), which collects the clinical data used for case-mix classification under RUG-IV.
We note that case-mix classification is based, in part, on the beneficiary's need for skilled nursing care and therapy services. The case-mix classification system uses clinical data from the MDS to assign a case-mix group to each patient that is then used to calculate a per diem payment under the SNF PPS. As discussed in section III.C.1. of this final rule, the clinical orientation of the case-mix classification system supports the SNF PPS's use of an administrative presumption that considers a beneficiary's initial case-mix classification to assist in making certain SNF level of care determinations. Further, because the MDS is used as a basis for payment, as well as a clinical assessment, we have provided extensive training on proper coding and the time frames for MDS completion in our Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual. For an MDS to be considered valid for use in determining payment, the MDS assessment must be completed in compliance with the instructions in the RAI Manual in effect at the time the assessment is completed. For payment and quality monitoring purposes, the RAI Manual consists of both the Manual instructions and the interpretive guidance and policy clarifications posted on the appropriate MDS Web site at
In addition, we note that section 511 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA, Pub. L. 108-173) amended section 1888(e)(12) of the Act to provide for a temporary increase of 128 percent in the PPS per diem payment for any SNF residents with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), effective with services furnished on or after October 1, 2004. This special add-on for SNF residents with AIDS was to remain in effect until the Secretary certifies that there is an appropriate adjustment in the case mix to compensate for the increased costs associated with such residents. The add-on for SNF residents with AIDS is also discussed in Program Transmittal #160 (Change Request #3291), issued on April 30, 2004, which is available online at
Currently, we use the International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) code 042 to identify those residents for whom it is appropriate to apply the AIDS add-on established by section 511 of the MMA. In this context, we note that the Department published a final rule in the September 5, 2012
However, on April 1, 2014, PAMA was enacted. Section 212 of PAMA, titled “Delay in Transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10 Code Sets,” provides that the Secretary of Health and Human Services may not, prior to October 1, 2015, adopt ICD-10 code sets as the standard for code sets under section 1173(c) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2(c)) and 45 CFR 162.1002. In the FY 2015 SNF PPS final rule (79 FR 45633), we stated that the Department expected to release an interim final rule in the near future that would include a new compliance date that would require the use of ICD-10 beginning October 1, 2015. In light of this, in the FY 2015 SNF PPS final rule, we stated that the effective date of the change from ICD-9-CM code 042 to ICD-10-CM code B20 for purposes of applying the AIDS add-on is October 1, 2015, and that until that time we would continue to use the ICD-9-CM code 042 for this purpose. On August 4, 2014, HHS released a final rule in the
Under section 1888(e)(4)(H), each update of the payment rates must include the case-mix classification methodology applicable for the upcoming FY. The payment rates set forth in this final rule reflect the use of the RUG-IV case-mix classification system from October 1, 2015, through September 30, 2016. We list the proposed case-mix adjusted RUG-IV payment rates, provided separately for urban and rural SNFs, in Tables 4 and 5 with corresponding case-mix values. We use the revised OMB delineations adopted in the FY 2015 SNF PPS final rule (79 FR 45632, 45634) to identify a facility's urban or rural status for the purpose of determining which set of rate tables apply to the facility. These tables do not reflect the add-on for SNF residents with AIDS enacted by section 511 of the MMA, which we apply only after making all other adjustments (such as wage index and case-mix).
Section 1888(e)(4)(G)(ii) of the Act requires that we adjust the federal rates to account for differences in area wage levels, using a wage index that the Secretary determines appropriate. Since the inception of the SNF PPS, we have used hospital inpatient wage data in developing a wage index to be applied to SNFs. We proposed to continue this practice for FY 2016, as we continue to believe that in the absence of SNF-specific wage data, using the hospital inpatient wage index data is appropriate and reasonable for the SNF PPS. As explained in the update notice for FY 2005 (69 FR 45786), the SNF PPS does not use the hospital area wage index's occupational mix adjustment, as this adjustment serves specifically to define the occupational categories more clearly in a hospital setting; moreover, the collection of the occupational wage data also excludes any wage data related to SNFs. Therefore, we believe that using the updated wage data exclusive of the occupational mix adjustment continues to be appropriate for SNF payments. For FY 2016, the updated wage data are for hospital cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 2011 and before October 1, 2012 (FY 2012 cost report data).
We note that section 315 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA, Pub. L. 106-554) authorized us to establish a geographic reclassification procedure that is specific to SNFs, but only after collecting the data necessary to establish a SNF wage index that is based on wage data from nursing homes. However, to date, this has proven to be unfeasible due to the volatility of existing SNF wage data and the significant amount of resources that would be required to improve the quality of that data.
In addition, we proposed to continue to use the same methodology discussed in the SNF PPS final rule for FY 2008 (72 FR 43423) to address those geographic areas in which there are no hospitals, and thus, no hospital wage index data on which to base the calculation of the FY 2016 SNF PPS wage index. For rural geographic areas that do not have hospitals, and therefore, lack hospital wage data on which to base an area wage adjustment, we would use the average wage index from all contiguous Core-Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) as a reasonable proxy. For FY 2016, there are no rural geographic areas that do not have hospitals, and thus, this methodology will not be applied. For rural Puerto Rico, we will not apply this methodology due to the distinct economic circumstances that exist there (for example, due to the close proximity to one another of almost all of Puerto Rico's various urban and non-urban areas, this methodology would produce a wage index for rural Puerto Rico that is higher than that in half of its urban areas); instead, we will continue to use the most recent wage index previously available for that area. For urban areas without specific hospital wage index data, we will use the average wage indexes of all of the urban areas within the state to serve as a reasonable proxy for the wage index of that urban CBSA. For FY 2016, the only urban area without wage index data available is CBSA 25980, Hinesville-Fort Stewart, GA. The wage index applicable to FY 2016 is set forth in Table A available on the CMS Web site at
Once calculated, we will apply the wage index adjustment to the labor-related portion of the federal rate. Each year, we calculate a revised labor-related share, based on the relative importance of labor-related cost categories (that is, those cost categories that are labor-intensive and vary with the local labor market) in the input price index. In the SNF PPS final rule for FY 2014 (78 FR 47944 through 47946), we finalized a proposal to revise the labor-related share to reflect the relative importance of the revised FY 2010-based SNF market basket cost weights for the following cost categories: Wages and salaries; employee benefits; the labor-related portion of nonmedical professional fees; administrative and facilities support services; all other:
We calculate the labor-related relative importance from the SNF market basket, and it approximates the labor-related portion of the total costs after taking into account historical and projected price changes between the base year and FY 2016. The price proxies that move the different cost categories in the market basket do not necessarily change at the same rate, and the relative importance captures these changes. Accordingly, the relative importance figure more closely reflects the cost share weights for FY 2016 than the base year weights from the SNF market basket.
We calculate the labor-related relative importance for FY 2016 in four steps. First, we compute the FY 2016 price index level for the total market basket and each cost category of the market basket. Second, we calculate a ratio for each cost category by dividing the FY 2016 price index level for that cost category by the total market basket price index level. Third, we determine the FY 2016 relative importance for each cost category by multiplying this ratio by the base year (FY 2010) weight. Finally, we add the FY 2016 relative importance for each of the labor-related cost categories (wages and salaries, employee benefits, the labor-related portion of non-medical professional fees, administrative and facilities support services, all other: labor-related services, and a portion of capital-related expenses) to produce the FY 2016 labor-related relative importance. Table 6 summarizes the updated labor-related share for FY 2016, compared to the labor-related share that was used for the FY 2015 SNF PPS final rule.
We proposed for FY 2016 and subsequent FYs, to report and apply the SNF PPS labor-related share at a tenth of a percentage point (rather than at a thousandth of a percentage point) consistent with the manner in which we report and apply the market basket update percentage under the SNF PPS and the IPPS and the manner in which we report and apply the IPPS labor-related share. The level of precision specified for the IPPS labor-related share is three decimal places or a tenth of a percentage point (0.696 or 69.6 percent), which we believe provides a reasonable level of precision. We believe it is appropriate to maintain such consistency across all payment systems so that the level of precision specified is both reasonable and similar for all providers. Additionally, we proposed in the FY 2016 SNF PPS proposed rule (80 FR 22049) that if more recent data become available (for example, a more recent estimate of the FY 2010-based SNF market basket and/or MFP adjustment), we would use such data, if appropriate, to determine the FY 2016 SNF market basket percentage change, labor-related share relative importance, forecast error adjustment, and MFP adjustment in this final rule. We note that more recent data did become available and that the proposed labor related share for FY 2016 of 69.2 percent has been updated, based on IGI's second quarter 2015 forecast, to an FY 2016 labor related share of 69.1 percent.
We invited public comments on these proposals. A discussion of the comments we received on these proposals, as well as a discussion of the general comments that we received on the wage index adjustment, and our responses to those comments, appears below.
After considering the comments received and for the reasons discussed above and in the FY 2016 SNF PPS proposed rule (80 FR 22052 through 22056), we are finalizing the FY 2016 wage index adjustment and related policies as proposed in the FY 2016 SNF PPS proposed rule without modification. For FY 2016, the updated wage data are for hospital cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 2011 and before October 1, 2012 (FY 2012 cost report data). We are also finalizing our proposal that for FY 2016 and subsequent FYs, we will report and apply the SNF PPS labor-related share at a tenth of a percentage point (rather than at a thousandth of a percentage point) consistent with the manner in which we report and apply the market basket update percentage under the SNF PPS and the IPPS and the manner in which we report and apply the IPPS labor-related share. Table 6 summarizes the updated labor-related share for FY 2016, compared to the labor-related share that was used for the FY 2015 SNF PPS final rule.
Tables 7 and 8 show the RUG-IV case-mix adjusted federal rates by labor-related and non-labor-related components.
Section 1888(e)(4)(G)(ii) of the Act also requires that we apply this wage index in a manner that does not result in aggregate payments under the SNF PPS that are greater or less than would otherwise be made if the wage adjustment had not been made. For FY 2016 (federal rates effective October 1, 2015), we will apply an adjustment to fulfill the budget neutrality requirement. We meet this requirement by multiplying each of the components of the unadjusted federal rates by a budget neutrality factor equal to the ratio of the weighted average wage adjustment factor for FY 2015 to the weighted average wage adjustment factor for FY 2016. For this calculation, we use the same FY 2014 claims utilization data for both the numerator and denominator of this ratio. We define the wage adjustment factor used in this calculation as the labor share of the rate component multiplied by the wage index plus the non-labor share of the rate component. The budget neutrality factor for FY 2016 would be 0.9992.
In the SNF PPS final rule for FY 2006 (70 FR 45026, August 4, 2005), we adopted the changes discussed in the OMB Bulletin No. 03-04 (June 6, 2003), available online at
In adopting the CBSA geographic designations, we provided for a 1-year transition in FY 2006 with a blended wage index for all providers. For FY 2006, the wage index for each provider consisted of a blend of 50 percent of the FY 2006 MSA-based wage index and 50 percent of the FY 2006 CBSA-based wage index (both using FY 2002 hospital data). We referred to the blended wage index as the FY 2006 SNF PPS transition wage index. As discussed in the SNF PPS final rule for FY 2006 (70 FR 45041), since the expiration of this 1-year transition on September 30, 2006, we have used the full CBSA-based wage index values.
On February 28, 2013, OMB issued OMB Bulletin No. 13-01, announcing revisions to the delineation of MSAs, Micropolitan Statistical Areas, and Combined Statistical Areas, and guidance on uses of the delineation of
While the revisions OMB published on February 28, 2013 are not as sweeping as the changes made when we adopted the CBSA geographic designations for FY 2006, the February 28, 2013 bulletin does contain a number of significant changes. For example, there are new CBSAs, urban counties that became rural, rural counties that became urban, and existing CBSAs that were split apart.
In the FY 2015 SNF PPS final rule (79 FR 45644 through 45646), we finalized changes to the SNF PPS wage index based on the newest OMB delineations, as described in OMB Bulletin No. 13-01, beginning in FY 2015, including a 1-year transition with a blended wage index for FY 2015. Because the 1-year transition period expires at the end of FY 2015, the SNF PPS wage index for FY 2016 is fully based on the revised OMB delineations adopted in FY 2015. As noted in this section, the wage index applicable to FY 2016 is set forth in Table A available on the CMS Web site at
Using the hypothetical SNF XYZ described below, Table 9 shows the adjustments made to the federal per diem rates to compute the provider's actual per diem PPS payment. We derive the Labor and Non-labor columns from Table 7. The wage index used in this example is based on the wage index found in Table A as referenced in this section. As illustrated in Table 9, SNF XYZ's total PPS payment would equal $45,256.24.
The establishment of the SNF PPS did not change Medicare's fundamental requirements for SNF coverage. However, because the case-mix classification is based, in part, on the beneficiary's need for skilled nursing care and therapy, we have attempted, where possible, to coordinate claims review procedures with the existing resident assessment process and case-mix classification system discussed in section III.B.3 of this final rule. This approach includes an administrative presumption that utilizes a beneficiary's initial classification in one of the upper 52 RUGs of the 66-group RUG-IV case-mix classification system to assist in making certain SNF level of care determinations.
In accordance with section 1888(e)(4)(H)(ii) of the Act and the regulations at § 413.345, we include in each update of the federal payment rates in the
A beneficiary assigned to any of the lower 14 RUG-IV groups is not automatically classified as either meeting or not meeting the definition, but instead receives an individual level of care determination using the existing administrative criteria. This presumption recognizes the strong likelihood that beneficiaries assigned to one of the upper 52 RUG-IV groups during the immediate post-hospital period require a covered level of care, which would be less likely for those beneficiaries assigned to one of the lower 14 RUG-IV groups.
In the July 30, 1999 final rule (64 FR 41670), we indicated that we would announce any changes to the guidelines for Medicare level of care determinations related to modifications in the case-mix classification structure. In this final rule, we will continue to designate the upper 52 RUG-IV groups for purposes of this administrative presumption, consisting of all groups encompassed by the following RUG-IV categories:
• Rehabilitation plus Extensive Services.
• Ultra High Rehabilitation.
• Very High Rehabilitation.
• High Rehabilitation.
• Medium Rehabilitation.
• Low Rehabilitation.
• Extensive Services.
• Special Care High.
• Special Care Low.
• Clinically Complex.
However, we note that this administrative presumption policy does not supersede the SNF's responsibility to ensure that its decisions relating to level of care are appropriate and timely, including a review to confirm that the services prompting the beneficiary's assignment to one of the upper 52 RUG-IV groups (which, in turn, serves to trigger the administrative presumption) are themselves medically necessary. As we explained in the FY 2000 SNF PPS final rule (64 FR 41667), the administrative presumption:
Moreover, we want to stress the importance of careful monitoring for changes in each patient's condition to determine the continuing need for Part A SNF benefits after the assessment reference date of the 5-day assessment.
We received one comment on this issue, which we discuss below along with our response.
Sections 1842(b)(6)(E) and 1862(a)(18) of the Act (as added by section 4432(b) of the BBA) require a SNF to submit consolidated Medicare bills to its Medicare Administrative Contractor for almost all of the services that its residents receive during the course of a covered Part A stay. In addition, section 1862(a)(18) of the Act places the responsibility with the SNF for billing Medicare for physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language pathology services that the resident receives during a noncovered stay. Section 1888(e)(2)(A) of the Act excludes a small list of services from the consolidated billing provision (primarily those services furnished by physicians and certain other types of practitioners), which remain separately billable under Part B when furnished to a SNF's Part A resident. These excluded service categories are discussed in greater detail in section V.B.2. of the May 12, 1998 interim final rule (63 FR 26295 through 26297).
A detailed discussion of the legislative history of the consolidated billing provision is available on the SNF PPS Web site at
As explained in the FY 2001 proposed rule (65 FR 19231 through 19232), the amendments enacted in section 103 of the BBRA not only identified for exclusion from this provision a number of particular service codes within four specified categories (that is, chemotherapy items, chemotherapy administration services, radioisotope services, and customized prosthetic devices), but also gave the Secretary “. . . the authority to designate additional, individual services for exclusion within each of the specified service categories.” In the proposed rule for FY 2001, we also noted that the BBRA Conference report (H.R. Rep. No. 106-479 at 854 (1999) (Conf. Rep.)) characterizes the individual services that this legislation targets for exclusion as “. . . high-cost, low probability events that could have devastating financial impacts because their costs far exceed the payment [SNFs] receive under the prospective payment system. . . .” According to the conferees, section 103(a) of the BBRA “is an attempt to exclude from the PPS certain services and costly items that are provided infrequently in SNFs. . . .” By contrast, we noted that the Congress declined to designate for exclusion any of the remaining services within those four categories (thus, leaving all of those services subject to SNF consolidated billing), because they are relatively inexpensive and are furnished routinely in SNFs.
As we further explained in the final rule for FY 2001 (65 FR 46790), and as our longstanding policy, any additional service codes that we might designate for exclusion under our discretionary authority must meet the same statutory criteria used in identifying the original codes excluded from consolidated billing under section 103(a) of the BBRA: they must fall within one of the four service categories specified in the BBRA; and they also must meet the same standards of high cost and low probability in the SNF setting, as discussed in the BBRA Conference report. Accordingly, we characterized this statutory authority to identify additional service codes for exclusion “. . . as essentially affording the flexibility to revise the list of excluded codes in response to changes of major significance that may occur over time (for example, the development of new medical technologies or other advances in the state of medical practice)” (65 FR 46791), and since that time, we have periodically invited the public to submit comments identifying codes that might meet the criteria for exclusion. In the FY 2016 SNF PPS proposed rule (80 FR 22057-58), we specifically invited public comments identifying HCPCS codes in any of these four service categories (chemotherapy items, chemotherapy administration services, radioisotope services, and customized prosthetic devices) representing recent medical advances that might meet our criteria for exclusion from SNF consolidated billing, and we requested
Regarding the suggestion on excluding certain customized orthotic devices under this authority, we have explained repeatedly in this and previous rules that the amendments enacted in section 103 of the BBRA
Moreover, we do not accept the commenters' premise that placing the billing responsibility with the SNF itself has the effect of distracting from a focus on quality of care. To the contrary, the consolidated billing provision was itself established precisely to help
As for the commenters' suggestions on requiring SNFs to pay suppliers the full Part B fee schedule amount for a bundled service, in the FY 2000 SNF PPS final rule (64 FR 41677, July 30, 1999), we noted in response to previous, similar suggestions that
In that same final rule (64 FR 41677), we also noted in response to previous, similar concerns regarding supplier discounts that
Finally, we do not share the view of those commenters who would categorize a portable x-ray service's transportation and setup as part of the separately billable PC; rather, as noted in § 90.5 of the Medicare Claims Processing Manual, Chapter 13 (available online at
Moreover, notwithstanding the commenters' assertions, the assignment of a Level II HCPCS code to a particular service would in no way automatically equate to identifying it as an excluded “physician” service in this context. Rather, under the regulations at 42 CFR 411.15(p)(2)(i), the
Section 1883 of the Act permits certain small, rural hospitals to enter into a Medicare swing-bed agreement, under which the hospital can use its beds to provide either acute- or SNF-level care, as needed. For critical access hospitals (CAHs), Part A pays on a reasonable cost basis for SNF-level services furnished under a swing-bed agreement. However, in accordance with section 1888(e)(7) of the Act, these services furnished by non-CAH rural
Accordingly, all non-CAH swing-bed rural hospitals have now come under the SNF PPS. Therefore, all rates and wage indexes outlined in earlier sections of this final rule for the SNF PPS also apply to all non-CAH swing-bed rural hospitals. A complete discussion of assessment schedules, the MDS, and the transmission software (RAVEN-SB for Swing Beds) appears in the FY 2002 final rule (66 FR 39562) and in the FY 2010 final rule (74 FR 40288). As finalized in the FY 2010 SNF PPS final rule (74 FR 40356 through 40357), effective October 1, 2010, non-CAH swing-bed rural hospitals are required to complete an MDS 3.0 swing-bed assessment which is limited to the required demographic, payment, and quality items. The latest changes in the MDS for swing-bed rural hospitals appear on the SNF PPS Web site at
In recent years, we have undertaken a number of initiatives to promote higher quality and more efficient health care for Medicare beneficiaries. These initiatives, which include demonstration projects, QRPs, and VBP programs, have been implemented in various health care settings, including physician offices, ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs), hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies (HHAs), and dialysis facilities. Many of these programs link a portion of Medicare payments to provider reporting or performance on quality measures. The overarching goal of these initiatives is to transform Medicare from a passive payer of claims to an active purchaser of quality health care for its beneficiaries.
We view VBP as an important step toward revamping how care is paid for, moving increasingly toward rewarding better value, outcomes, and innovations instead of merely volume.
Section 3006(a) of the Affordable Care Act required the Secretary to develop a plan to implement a VBP program under the Medicare program for SNFs (as defined in section 1819(a) of the Act) and to submit that plan to Congress. In developing the plan, this section required the Secretary to consider several issues, including the ongoing development, selection, and modification process for measures, the reporting, collection, and validation of quality data, the structure of value-based payment adjustments, methods for public disclosure of SNF performance, and any other issues determined appropriate by the Secretary. The Secretary was also required to consult with relevant affected parties and consider experience with demonstrations relevant to the SNF VBP Program.
HHS submitted the Report to Congress required under section 3006 of the Affordable Care Act in March 2012. The report explains that a significant number of elderly Americans receive care in SNFs/NFs, either as short-term post-acute care or as long-term custodial care, and that quality of care is a significant concern for a subset of SNFs/NFs. The report also states that the SNF PPS does not strongly incentivize SNFs to furnish high quality care to this very fragile patient population. The report concludes that the Medicare program could incentivize SNFs to improve the quality of care for their patients.
In the report, we explained our belief that the implementation of a SNF VBP Program is a central step in revamping Medicare's payments for health care services to reward better value, outcome, and innovations, rather than the volume of care. We also explained our belief that a SNF VBP Program should promote the development and use of robust quality measures, including measures that assess functional status, to promote timely, safe, and high-quality care for Medicare beneficiaries. We noted that the creation of a SNF VBP Program would align with numerous HHS and CMS efforts to improve care coordination, and would be consistent with the National Quality Strategy and its aims of Better Care, Healthy People and Communities, and Affordable Care.
The full report is available on our Web site at
Section 215 of PAMA added sections 1888(g) and (h) to the Act. Section 1888(g)(1) of the Act requires the Secretary to specify a SNF all-cause all-condition hospital readmission measure (or any successor to such a measure) not later than October 1, 2015. Section 1888(g)(2) of the Act requires the Secretary to specify an all-condition risk-adjusted potentially preventable hospital readmission rate for SNFs not later than October 1, 2016. Section 1888(g)(3) of the Act directs the Secretary to develop a methodology to achieve high reliability and validity for these measures, especially for SNFs with a low volume of readmissions. Section 1888(g)(4) of the Act makes the pre-rulemaking Measure Applications Partnership process of Section 1890A of the Act optional for these measures. Under section 1888(g)(5) of the Act, the Secretary is directed to provide quarterly confidential feedback reports to SNFs on their performance on the readmission or resource use measure beginning on October 1, 2016. Under section 1888(g)(6) of the Act, not later than October 1, 2017, the Secretary must establish procedures for making performance data on readmission and resource use measures public on
Section 1888(h)(1)(A) of the Act requires the Secretary to establish a SNF VBP program under which value-based incentive payments are made in a FY to SNFs, and section 1888(h)(1)(B) of the Act requires that the Program apply to payments for services furnished on or after October 1, 2018. Under section 1888(h)(2)(A) of the Act, the Secretary must apply the readmission measure specified under section 1888(g)(1) of the Act for purposes of the Program, and section 1888(h)(1)(B) of the Act requires the Secretary to apply the resource use measure specified under section 1888(g)(2) of the Act instead of the readmission measure specified under section 1888(g)(1) as soon as practicable. Sections 1888(h)(3)(A) and (B) of the Act require the Secretary to establish performance standards for the measure applied under section 1888(h)(2) of the Act for a performance period for a FY and that those performance standards include levels of achievement and improvement. In addition, in calculating the SNF performance score for the
Section 1888(h)(4) of the Act directs the Secretary to develop a methodology to assess each SNF's total performance based on the performance standards for the applicable measure for each performance period. Under section 1888(h)(4)(B) of the Act, SNF performance scores for the performance period for each FY must be ranked from low to high.
Section 1888(h)(5) of the Act outlines several requirements for value-based incentive payments under the SNF VBP Program. Under section 1888(h)(5)(A) of the Act, the Secretary is directed to increase the adjusted federal per diem rate determined under section 1888(e)(4)(G) for services furnished by a SNF by the value-based incentive payment amount determined under section 1888(h)(5)(B). This section also directs that the value-based incentive payment amount be equal to the product of the adjusted federal per diem rate and the value-based incentive payment percentage specified under section 1888(h)(5)(C) of the Act for the SNF for the FY. Section 1888(h)(5)(C) requires the Secretary to specify a value-based incentive payment percentage for a SNF for a FY, which may include a zero percentage. The Secretary is further directed under section 1888(h)(5)(C) to ensure that such percentage is based on the SNF performance score for the performance period for the FY, that the application of all such percentages in a FY results in an appropriate distribution of value-based incentive payments, and that the total amount of value-based incentive payments for all SNFs for a FY be greater than or equal to 50 percent, but not greater than 70 percent, of the total amount of the reductions to payments for the FY under section 1888(h)(6), as estimated by the Secretary.
Section 1888(h)(6) of the Act requires the Secretary to reduce the adjusted federal per diem rate for SNFs otherwise applicable to each SNF for services furnished by that SNF during the applicable FY by the applicable percent, which is defined in paragraph (b) as 2 percent for FY 2019 and subsequent years. Section 1888(h)(7) of the Act requires the Secretary to inform each SNF of its payment adjustments under the Program not later than 60 days prior to the FY involved, and under section 1888(h)(8) of the Act, the value-based incentive payments calculated for a FY apply only for that FY.
Section 1888(h)(9)(A) of the Act requires the Secretary to publish SNF-specific performance information on the
We received a number of general comments on the SNF VBP Program.
We thank the commenters for this general feedback, and will take it into account in future rulemaking.
Reducing hospital readmissions is important for quality of care and patient safety. Readmission to a hospital may be an adverse event for patients and in many cases imposes a financial burden on the health care system. Successful efforts to reduce preventable readmission rates will improve the quality of care furnished to beneficiaries while simultaneously decreasing the cost of that care. Hospitals and other health care providers can work with their communities to lower readmission rates and improve patient care in a number of ways, such as by ensuring that patients are clinically ready to be discharged, reducing infection risk, reconciling medications, improving communication with community providers responsible for post-discharge patient care, improving care transitions, and ensuring that patients understand their care plans upon discharge.
Many studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of these types of in-hospital and post-discharge interventions in reducing the risk of readmission, confirming that hospitals and their partners have the ability to lower readmission rates.
We proposed to specify the SNF 30-Day All-Cause Readmission Measure (SNFRM) (NQF #2510) as the SNF all-cause, all-condition hospital readmission measure under section 1888(g)(1) of the Act. This measure assesses the risk-standardized rate of all-cause, all-condition, unplanned inpatient hospital readmissions of Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) SNF patients within 30 days of discharge from an admission to an inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS) hospital, CAH, or psychiatric hospital. This measure is claims-based, requiring no additional data collection or submission burden for SNFs.
We also proposed to apply this measure for purposes of the SNF VBP Program under section 1888(h)(2)(A) of the Act. We believe that this measure will (1) incentivize SNFs to make quality improvements that result in successful transitions of care for patients discharged from the hospital (IPPS, CAH or psychiatric hospital) setting to a SNF, and subsequently to the community or to another post-acute care setting, (2) reduce unplanned readmission rates of these patients to hospitals; and (3) align the SNF VBP Program with the National Quality Strategy priorities of safer, better coordinated care and lower costs.
We developed this measure based upon the NQF-endorsed Hospital-Wide All-Cause Unplanned Readmission Measure (HWR) (NQF #1789) (
A discussion of the general comments that we received on the SNFRM, and our responses to those comments, appears below.
While we recognize that the SNFRM does not align with the unplanned readmission measure for IRFs (#2502), we are currently developing an unplanned readmission measure for IRFs that is analogous to the SNFRM in that it assesses readmissions among IRF patients following discharge from an acute care hospital. This second IRF measure is intended to exist in tandem with the existing IRF measure #2502, which assesses readmissions for 30 days following discharge from the IRF.
In addition, at times we request additional measures from external stakeholders and measure developers, which are also reviewed by the MAP. The MAP's input is responsive to the particular program for which its review was sought. In this case, the SNFRM was submitted via an ad hoc Measures Under Consideration list to the MAP for consideration in SNF-VBP. The MAP's 2015 recommendations, available at
The SNFRM estimates the risk-standardized rate of all-cause, unplanned, hospital readmissions for SNF Medicare FFS beneficiaries within 30 days of discharge from their prior proximal acute hospitalization. The SNF admission must have occurred within one day after discharge from the prior proximal hospitalization. The prior proximal hospitalization is defined as an inpatient admission to an IPPS, CAH, or a psychiatric hospital. Because the measure denominator is based on SNF admissions, each Medicare beneficiary may be included in the measure multiple times within a given year if they have more than one SNF stay meeting all measure inclusion criteria including a prior proximal hospitalization.
Patient readmissions included in the measure are identified by examining Medicare claims data for readmissions of SNF Medicare FFS beneficiaries to an IPPS, or CAH occurring within 30 days of discharge from the prior proximal hospitalization. If the patient was admitted to the SNF within 1 day of discharge from the prior proximal hospitalization and the hospital readmission occurred within the 30-day risk window, it is counted in the numerator regardless of whether the patient is readmitted directly from the SNF or has been discharged from the SNF. Because patients differ in complexity and morbidity, the measure is risk-adjusted for patient case-mix. The measure also excludes planned readmissions, because these are not considered to be indicative of poor quality of care by the SNF. Details regarding how readmissions are identified are available in our SNFRM Technical Report.
The SNFRM (NQF #2510) assesses readmission rates while accounting for patient demographics, principal diagnosis in the prior hospitalization, comorbidities, and other patient factors. While estimating the predictive power of patient characteristics, the model also estimates a facility-specific effect common to patients treated at that SNF.
The SNFRM is calculated based on the ratio, for each SNF, of the number of risk-adjusted all-cause, unplanned readmissions to an IPPS or CAH that occurred within 30 days of discharge from the prior proximal hospitalization, including the estimated facility effect, to the estimated number of risk-adjusted predicted unplanned inpatient hospital readmissions for the same patients treated at the average SNF. A ratio above 1.0 indicates a higher than expected readmission rate, or lower level of quality, while a ratio below 1.0 indicates a lower than expected readmission rate, or higher level of quality. This ratio is referred to as the standardized risk ratio or SRR. The SRR is then multiplied by the overall national raw readmission rate for all SNF stays. The resulting rate is the risk-standardized readmission rate (RSRR). The full methodology is detailed in the SNFRM Technical Report.
The patient population includes SNF patients who:
• Had a prior hospital discharge (IPPS, CAH or psychiatric hospital) within 1 day of their admission to a SNF.
• Had at least 12 months of Medicare Part A, FFS coverage prior to their discharge date from the prior proximal hospitalization.
• Had Medicare Part A, FFS coverage during the 30 days (the 30-day risk window) following their discharge date from the prior proximal hospitalization.
A discussion of the general comments that we received on the SNFRM measure calculation, and our responses to those comments, appears below.
Furthermore, we intend to make performance reports available to facilities that are easy to interpret and present information on the facility-level readmission rates and relative standing on this measure, rather than information from the claims data directly. We intend to make SNFs' performance data available as quickly as is practicable. This will serve to provide information on a facility's performance and aid in informing quality improvement efforts at the facility level.
Variation in rates that may occur in facilities with low volume is dealt with by averaging the volatile facility data with the national mean when the hierarchical models are used. In addition, we will consider appropriate facility volume thresholds for reporting depending on the use of the measure.
Another commenter suggested that we explore merging FFS and Medicare Advantage data sets given the relative prevalence of MA patients in the SNF setting. The commenter also noted that the IMPACT Act does not separate Medicare beneficiaries by MA status. The commenter also recommended that facilities be allowed to complete and submit a combined Admission Assessment with the 5-day Assessment for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries to track readmission outcome data for all payer types in the facility.
For private-pay residents, we do not always have claims for the index hospital stay (the proximate stay at an acute-care hospital that precedes care with a SNF and defines the denominator), even if the related readmissions could be identified in Medicare data. In addition, we do not have reliable sources of data for Medicare Advantage patients. The most reliable data available for determining readmissions during a SNF stay are for Part A FFS beneficiaries.
We agree that as penetration of the Medicare Advantage market in the SNF setting increases, finding ways of including readmissions for these patients should be a priority. We will continue to explore ways to include these patients in future years, given the differences in data sources.
Patients whose prior proximal hospitalization was for the medical treatment for cancer are excluded. Analyses of this population during measure development showed them to have a different trajectory of illness and mortality than other patient populations, which is consistent with findings in studies in other patient populations.
SNF stays excluded from the measure are:
• SNF stays where the patient had one or more intervening post-acute care (PAC) admissions (inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF), long-term care hospital (LTCH), or another SNF) which occurred either between the prior proximal hospital discharge and SNF admission (from which the patient was readmitted) or after the SNF discharge but before the readmission, within the 30-day risk window.
• SNF stays with a gap of greater than 1 day between discharge from the prior proximal hospitalization and the SNF admission.
• SNF stays in which the patient was discharged from the SNF against medical advice (AMA).
• SNF stays in which the principal diagnosis for the prior proximal hospitalization was for rehabilitation care; fitting of prostheses and for the adjustment of devices.
• SNF stays in which the prior proximal hospitalization was for pregnancy.
• SNF stays in which data were missing on any variable used in the SNFRM construction.
Readmissions within the 30-day risk window that are usually considered planned due to the nature of the procedures and principal diagnoses of the readmission are also excluded from the measure. In addition to the list of planned procedures is a list of diagnoses (provided in the SNFRM Technical Report), which, if found as the principal diagnosis on the readmission claim, would indicate that the usually planned procedure occurred during an unplanned acute readmission. In addition to the HWR Planned Readmission Algorithm, the SNFRM incorporates procedures that are considered planned in post-acute care settings as identified in consultation with TEPs. Full details on the planned readmissions criteria used, including the additional procedures considered planned for post-acute care may be found in the SNFRM Technical Report. Details regarding the TEP proceedings can be found in the SNFRM TEP Report.
A discussion of the general comments that we received on the SNFRM exclusions, and our responses to those comments, appears below.
Additionally, we found that those with intervening IRF/LTCH admissions had longer hospital lengths of stay and more prior proximal hospitalizations involving surgical procedures compared to those without an intervening stay. This observation supports the rationale that patients who had intervening IRF/LTCH stays are entering the SNF at a later stage of their recovery and are therefore at a different risk for readmission than patients who were admitted directly to the SNF from their prior proximal hospitalization. This issue also impacts a relatively small number of SNF stays; 6 percent have an intervening PAC stay (IRF, LTCH, or another SNF) or go home from their prior proximal hospitalization and are later admitted to a SNF within the 30-day readmission window.
Combined, these analyses provide justification for excluding SNF admissions with intervening IRF or LTCH admissions, or with multiple SNF stays, by showing these exclusions will not have a substantial effect on the SNFRM. Patients with multiple PAC stays after a prior proximal hospitalization are not systematically different from those with only one SNF stay with regard to comorbidities, but are very different with regard to readmission risk. Additionally, concerns about attribution, given the mix of providers these patients have received services from during the risk period, argues for the appropriateness of excluding these patients. Lastly, patients with multiple PAC stays do not cluster in a small group of facilities, so no facilities are disproportionately impacted by these exclusions.
An eligible SNF admission is considered to be in the 30-day risk window from the date of discharge from the proximal acute hospitalization until: (1) The 30-day period ends; or (2) the patient is readmitted to an IPPS or CAH. If the readmission is unplanned, it is counted as a readmission in the numerator of the measure. If the readmission is planned, the readmission is not counted in the numerator of the measure. The occurrence of a planned readmission ends further tracking for readmissions in the 30-day period.
We did not receive any comments on the specific topic of eligible readmissions. However, we addressed comments on exclusions from the measure above.
Readmission rates are risk-adjusted for patient case-mix characteristics, independent of quality. The risk adjustment modeling estimates the effects of patient characteristics, comorbidities, and select health status variables on the probability of readmission. More specifically, the risk-adjustment model for SNFs accounts for demographic characteristics (age and sex), principal diagnosis during the prior proximal hospitalization, comorbidities based on the secondary medical diagnoses listed on the patient's prior proximal hospital claim and diagnoses from prior hospitalizations that occurred in the previous 365 days, length of stay during the patient's prior proximal hospitalization, length of stay in the ICU, body system specific surgical indicators, ESRD status, whether the patient was disabled, and the number of prior hospitalizations in the previous 365 days.
A discussion of the general comments that we received on the SNFRM risk adjustment, and our responses to those comments, appears below.
One commenter stated that we should submit the SNFRM to NQF under its pilot program for socioeconomic risk adjustment evaluation. The commenter stated that many SNFs provide care to the most vulnerable residents of their communities and that those patients present greater challenges in maintaining optimal medical and functional outcomes, including greater risk for readmission.
Another commenter stated that the SNFRM, and any other measures used in the VBP program, should be appropriately risk adjusted for the population served. The commenter stated that there is significant variation in size, patient populations, and scope of service that are not fully accounted for by current risk adjustments. The commenter also stated that readmission predictors are more highly linked to functional needs and family/caregiver support resources, neither of which are included in risk adjustment.
NQF is currently undertaking a 2-year trial period in which new measures and measures undergoing maintenance review will be assessed to determine if risk-adjusting for sociodemographic factors is appropriate for each measure. For 2 years, NQF will conduct a trial of a temporary policy change that will allow inclusion of sociodemographic factors in the risk-adjustment approach for some performance measures. At the conclusion of the trial, NQF will determine whether to make this policy change permanent. Measure developers must submit information such as analyses and interpretations as well as performance scores with and without sociodemographic factors in the risk adjustment model.
Furthermore, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) is conducting research to examine the impact of socioeconomic status on quality measures, resource use, and other measures under the Medicare program as directed by the IMPACT Act. We will closely examine the findings of these reports and related Secretarial recommendations and consider how they apply to our quality programs at such time as they are available.
The SNFRM utilizes 1 year of data to calculate the measure rate. Given that there are more than 2 million Medicare FFS SNF admissions per year in more than 15,000 SNFs, 1 year of data is sufficient to calculate this measure with a model in which the risk adjusters have sufficient sample size to have good precision. The relevant reliability testing may be found in the SNFRM Technical Report.
We sought public comments on the SNFRM's measurement period, and have responded to them in the “FY 2019 Performance Period and Baseline Period Considerations” section below.
Our measure development contractor convened a TEP which provided input on the technical specifications of this quality measure. The TEP was supportive of the design of this measure. We also solicited stakeholder feedback on the development of this measure through a public comment process from July 15th to 29th, 2013. In December 2014, the NQF endorsed the SNF 30-Day All-Cause Readmission Measure (NQF #2510).
We also considered input from the Measures Application Partnership (MAP) when selecting measures under the CMS SNF VBP Program. The MAP is composed of multi-stakeholder groups convened by the NQF, our current contractor under section 1890(a) of the Act. The MAP has noted the need for care transition measures in PAC/Long Term Care (LTC) performance measurement programs and stated that setting-specific admission and readmission measures under consideration would address this need.
We sought public comments on our proposal to adopt the SNF 30-Day All-Cause Readmission Measure (SNFRM) (NQF #2510) for use in the SNF VBP Program, and our responses appear in subsections i. through vii. above, as well as in subsection viii. below.
Section 1888(g)(5) of the Act requires that beginning October 1, 2016, SNFs be provided quarterly confidential feedback reports on their performance on measures specified under sections 1888(g)(1) or (2) of the Act.
We intended to address this topic in future rulemaking. However, we requested public comment on the best means by which to communicate these reports to SNFs. For example, we could consider providing confidential, downloadable feedback reports to SNFs through a secure portal, such as QualityNet. We also invited comment on the level of detail that would be most helpful to SNFs in understanding their performance on the new quality measures. The comments we received on these topics, with their responses, appear below.
After consideration of the public comments that we have received, we are finalizing our proposal to specify the SNF 30-Day All-Cause Readmission Measure (SNFRM) (NQF #2510) and to adopt the measure for the SNF VBP as the SNF all-cause, all-condition hospital readmission measure under section 1888(g)(1) of the Act as proposed.
Section 1888(h)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary to establish performance standards for the SNF VBP Program. The performance standards must include levels of achievement and improvement, and must be established and announced not later than 60 days prior to the beginning of the performance period for the FY involved. To assist us in developing our proposals to establish performance standards for the SNF VBP program, we reviewed a number of innovative health care programs and demonstration projects, both public and private, to discover if any could serve as a prototype for the SNF VBP program. One methodology of important note that provides us an analogous framework for implementation of performance standards is the Performance Assessment Model, implemented for our Hospital VBP program. We also reviewed the Hospital Acquired Conditions Reduction Program, as well as the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program and the End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program (ESRD QIP).
We invited comment on several potential approaches for calculating performance standards under the SNF VBP Program. The comments we received on this topic, with their responses, appear below after discussion of these potential approaches.
Under the Hospital VBP Program, a hospital's Total Performance Score is determined by aggregating and weighting domain scores, which are calculated based on hospital performance on measures within each domain. The domain scores are then weighted to calculate a TPS that ranges between 0 and 100 points. At this time, we do not anticipate proposing to adopt quality measurement domains akin to other CMS quality programs under the SNF VBP Program due to fact that this program is based on only one measure.
To calculate HVBP measure scores, hospital performance on specified quality measures is compared to performance standards established by the Secretary. These performance standards include levels of achievement and improvement and enable us to award between 0 and 10 points to each hospital based on its performance on each measure during the performance period. An achievement threshold, generally defined as the median of all hospital performance on most measures during a specified baseline period, is the minimum level of performance required to receive achievement points. The benchmark, generally defined as the
We believe that the Hospital VBP Program's performance standards methodology is a well-understood methodology under which health care providers and suppliers can be rewarded both for providing high-quality care and for improving their performance over time. The statutory authority for the Hospital VBP Program is structured similarly to the statutory authority for the SNF VBP Program, and we are considering adoption of a similar methodology for establishing performance standards under the SNF VBP Program. We also seek to align our pay-for-performance and QRPs as much as possible. Specifically, we could consider adopting performance standards based on all SNF performance during the baseline period on the measure specified under section 1888(g)(1) or (2) of the Act in the form of the achievement threshold—median of all SNF performance during a baseline period—and the benchmark—mean of the top decile of all SNF performance during a baseline period. We could then consider awarding points along a continuum relative to those performance levels.
We also considered whether we should adopt any components of the scoring methodology that we have finalized for the HAC Reduction Program under the SNF VBP Program. The HAC Reduction Program requires the Secretary to reduce eligible hospitals' Medicare payments to 99 percent of what would otherwise have been paid for discharges when hospitals rank in the worst performing quartile for risk-adjusted HAC quality measures. These quality measures comprise efforts to promote quality of care by reducing the number of HACs in the acute inpatient hospital setting.
We determine a hospital's Total HAC Score by first assigning each hospital a score of between 1 and 10 for each measure based on the hospital's relative performance ranking in 10 groups (or deciles) for that measure. Second, the measure score is used to calculate the domain score. We discuss other details of the HAC Reduction Program's scoring methodology in further detail in this section.
Although the HACRP statutory authority is not structured the same as the SNF VBP statutory authority, we view the HACRP's use of decile-based performance standards as one conceptual possibility for constructing performance standards under the SNF VBP Program. Specifically, we could consider setting performance standards based on SNFs' ranked performance on the measures specified under sections 1888(g)(1) or (2) of the Act during the performance period. We could divide SNFs' performance on the measures into deciles and award between 1 and 10 points to all SNFs within each decile. While this type of performance standards calculation would measure and reward achievement, we are concerned that it would not incorporate improvement, and we invited comment on the best means by which we could include improvement in this type of calculation.
We also considered aspects of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) for adaptation under the SNF VBP Program. HRRP reduces Medicare payments to hospitals with a higher number of readmissions for applicable conditions over a specified time period.
Hospital readmissions are defined as Medicare patients who are readmitted to the same or another hospital within 30 days of a discharge from the same or another hospital, which includes short-term inpatient acute care hospitals. The initial hospital inpatient admission (the discharge from which starts the 30-day potential penalty clock) is termed the index admission. The hospital inpatient readmission (which can be used to determine application of a penalty if the readmission occurs within 30 days of the index inpatient admission stay) can be for any cause, that is, it does not have to be for the same cause as the index admission.
Using historical data, we determine whether eligible IPPS hospitals have readmission rates that are higher than expected, given the hospital's case mix, while accounting for the patient risk factors, including age, and chronic medical conditions identified from inpatient and outpatient claims for the 12 months prior to the hospitalization. A hospital's excess readmission ratio for each condition is a measure of a hospital's readmission performance compared to the national average for the hospital's set of patients with that applicable condition. If the hospital's actual readmission rate, based on the hospital's actual performance, for the year is greater than its CMS-expected readmission rate, the hospital incurs a penalty up to the maximum cap. If a hospital performs better than an average hospital that admitted similar patients, the hospital will not be subjected to a payment reduction. If a hospital performs worse than average (below a 1.000 score), the poorer performance triggers a payment reduction. For FY 2013, the reduction was capped at 1 percent, for FY 2014 at 2 percent, and at 3 percent for FY 2015 and for subsequent years.
We view the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program as a potential model for the SNF VBP Program because that program does not weight scores based on domains. That is, under the HRRP, hospitals' risk-adjusted readmissions ratios form the basis for Medicare payment adjustments. Under SNF VBP (and as discussed further in this section), the Program's statute requires us to select only one measure to form the basis for the SNF Performance Score. We believe that this conceptual similarity stands distinct from certain other CMS quality programs that incorporate quality measurement domains and domain weighting into the scoring calculations. However, the HRRP sets an effective performance standard based on the average readmissions adjustment factor of 1.000. We invited comment on whether we should adopt a similar form of performance standard under the SNF VBP Program.
This performance standard could take the form of the median or mean performance on the specified quality measure during the performance period. However, we believe we would also need to consider more granular delineations in SNF scoring to ensure an appropriate distribution of value-based incentive payments under the Program, and we invited comment on what additional policies we should consider adopting in this topic area.
The ESRD QIP is authorized by section 1881(h) of the Act. The program promotes patient health by providing a financial incentive for renal dialysis facilities to deliver high-quality care to their patients.
Section 1881(h)(3)(A)(i) of the Act requires the Secretary to develop a methodology for assessing the total performance of each provider and facility based on performance standards. For each clinical measure adopted under the ESRD QIP, we assess
For each reporting measure, we assess performance based on whether the facility completed the reporting for that measure as specified. If a facility reports data according to the specifications we have adopted, then the facility earns the maximum number of points on the measure. If the facility partially reports data according to the specifications we have adopted, the hospital earns some points on the measure, but less than the maximum.
We believe that the ESRD QIP performance standards methodology is a well-understood methodology under which health care providers and suppliers can be rewarded both for providing high-quality care and for improving their performance over time. The scoring methodology rewards achievement and improvement, and is generally aligned with other pay-for-performance and QRPs. Like the Hospital VBP Program statutory language, the ESRD QIP statutory language is structured similar to the SNF VBP Program statutory language, and we are considering adoption of a similar methodology for calculating performance standards under the SNF VBP Program. Specifically, we could consider adopting performance standards based on all SNF performance during the baseline period on the measure specified under sections 1888(g)(1) or (2) of the Act in the forms of the achievement threshold—median of all SNF performance—and the benchmark—mean of the top decile of all SNF performance. We could then consider awarding points for those performance levels.
A discussion of the comments that we received on potential approaches to calculating performance standards, and our responses to those comments, appears below.
We will consider these comments further in future rulemaking.
We are considering several methodologies for improvement scoring under the SNF VBP Program, and we invited public comments on these options or others that we should consider as we develop our SNF VBP Program policies for future rulemaking.
Section 1888(h)(4)(B) of the Act specifically requires us to construct a ranking of SNF performance scores. While we view such a ranking system as fairly straightforward when based on achievement scoring—for example, ranking SNFs based on their performance on a measure during the performance period could be achieved by ordering SNF performance rates on the measure specified for the Program year—we are considering several approaches for including improvement in the SNF scoring methodology because we are limited to one measure for each SNF Program year. These approaches include:
• Improvement points, awarded using a similar methodology as the one we use to award improvement points in the Hospital VBP Program.
• Measure rate increases, in which a SNF's performance rate on a measure would be increased as a result of its improvement over time.
• Ranking increases, in which a SNF's ranking relative to other SNFs would be increased as a result of improvement.
• Performance score increases, in which a SNF's performance score would be increased as a result of improvement.
We discuss each of these options in further detail in the FY 2016 SNF PPS proposed rule (80 FR 22063 through 22064).
The comments we received on this topic, along with their responses, appear below.
We will consider these comments further in future rulemaking.
We intended to specify a performance period for a payment year close to the payment year's start date. We strive to link performance furnished by SNFs as closely as possible to the payment year to ensure clear connections between quality measurement and value-based payment. We also strive to measure performance using a sufficiently reliable population of patients that broadly represent the total care provided by SNFs. As such, we anticipate that our annual performance period end date must provide sufficient time for SNFs to submit claims for the patients included in our measure population. In other programs, such as HRRP and the Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Program (HIQR), this time lag between care delivered to patients who are included in the readmission measures and application of a payment consequence linked to reporting or performance on those measures has historically been close to 1 year. We also recognize that other factors contribute to this time lag, including the processing time we need to calculate measure rates using multiple sources of claims needed for statistical modeling, time for providers to review their measure rates and included patients, and processing time we need to determine whether a payment adjustment needs to be made to a provider's reimbursement rate under the applicable PPS based on its reporting or performance on measures.
For the FY 2019 SNF VBP Program's performance period, we are also considering the necessary timeline we need to complete measure scoring to announce the net result of the Program's adjustments to Medicare payments not later than 60 days prior to the FY, in accordance with section 1888(h)(7) of the Act. We are also considering the number of SNF stays typically covered by Medicare each year. As discussed previously, Medicare typically covers more than 2 million Medicare Part A stays per year in more than 15,000 SNFs. Therefore, we believe that 1 year of SNFRM data is sufficient to ensure that the measure rates are statistically reliable.
We intended to propose a performance period for the FY 2019 SNF VBP Program in future rulemaking. We invited public comment on the most appropriate performance period length. The comments we received on this topic, with their responses, appear below.
We will consider these comments further in future rulemaking.
As described previously, in other Medicare quality programs such as the Hospital VBP Program and the ESRD Quality Incentive Program, we generally adopt a baseline period that occurs prior to the performance period for a FY to measure improvement and establish performance standards.
We view the SNF VBP Program as necessitating a similarly-adopted baseline period for each FY to measure improvement (as required by section 1888(h)(3)(B) of the Act) and to enable us to calculate performance standards that we must establish and announce prior to the performance period (as required by section 1888(h)(3)(A) of the Act). As with the Hospital VBP Program, we intend to adopt baseline periods that are as close as possible in duration as the performance period specified for a FY. However, we may occasionally need to adopt a baseline period that is shorter than the performance period to meet operational timelines. We also intended to adopt baseline periods that are seasonally aligned with the performance periods to avoid any effects on quality measurement that may result from tracking SNF performance during different times of the calendar year.
We stated our intent to propose a baseline period for purposes of calculating performance standards and measuring improvement in future rulemaking. We invited public comment on the most appropriate baseline period for the FY 2019 Program, including what considerations we should take into account when developing this policy for future rulemaking. The comments we received on this topic, with their responses, appear below.
We will consider these comments further in future rulemaking.
As with our performance standards policy considerations described above, we considered how other Medicare quality programs score eligible facilities. Specifically, we considered how the Hospital VBP Program and the Hospital-Acquired Conditions Reduction Program score eligible hospitals. We discussed the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program's scoring above in relation to performance standards.
A Hospital VBP domain score is calculated by combining the measure scores within that domain, weighting each measure equally. The domain score reflects the number of points the hospital has earned based on its performance on the measures within that domain for which it is eligible to receive a score. After summing the weighted domain scores, the TPS is translated using a linear exchange function into the percentage multiplier to be applied to each Medicare discharge claim submitted by the hospital during the applicable FY. (We discuss the Exchange Function in further detail below).
Unlike the Hospital VBP Program, the SNF VBP program focuses on a single readmission measure, one that will be replaced by a single resource use measure as soon as is practicable. As described above, we do not anticipate adopting quality measure domains akin to other CMS quality programs under the SNF VBP Program. We therefore invited comment on how, if at all, we should adapt the HVBP Program's scoring methodology to accommodate both the smaller number of measures and the ranking required under the SNF VBP Program. We responded to comments on this topic below.
The Hospital-Acquired Conditions (HAC) Reduction Program scores measures that have been categorized into domains, in a manner that is similar to the HVBP Program's domain structure. For Domain 1, the points awarded to the single assigned measure yield the Domain 1 score, since Domain 1 only contains one measure. For Domain 2, the points awarded for the domain measures are averaged to yield a Domain 2 score. A hospital's Total HAC Score is determined by the sum of weighted Domain 1 and Domain 2 scores. Higher scores indicate worse performance relative to the performance of all other eligible hospitals. Hospitals with a Total HAC Score above the 75th percentile of the Total HAC Score distribution are subject to a payment reduction.
Unlike the Hospital VBP program, referenced above, there is no requirement in the HAC Reduction Program that measures or performance standards must incorporate improvement and achievement scores. As with the HVBP Program above, we invited public comments on the extent to which, if at all, we should adopt components of the HAC Reduction Program's scoring methodology for purposes of the SNF VBP Program. We specifically invited comments on whether we should set an absolute level of performance that must be reached to receive a positive SNF value-based incentive payment. We responded to comments on this topic below.
We stated our intention to consider several additional factors when developing the performance scoring methodology. We believe that it is important to ensure that the performance scoring methodology is straightforward and transparent to SNFs, patients, and other stakeholders. SNFs must be able to clearly understand performance scoring methods and performance expectations to maximize their quality improvement efforts. The public must understand the scoring methodology to make the best use of the publicly reported information when choosing a SNF. We also believe that scoring methodologies for all Medicare VBP programs should be aligned as appropriate given their specific statutory requirements. This alignment will facilitate the public's understanding of quality information disseminated in these programs and foster more informed consumer decision making about health care. We believe that differences in performance scores must reflect true differences in performance. To ensure that these beliefs are appropriately reflected in the SNF VBP Program, we stated our intention to assess the quantitative characteristics of the measures specified under sections 1888(g)(1) and (2) of the Act, including the current state of measure development, to ensure an appropriate distribution of value-based incentive payments as required by the SNF VBP statute.
We invited public comment on what other considerations we should take into account when developing our proposed scoring methodology for the SNF VBP Program in future rulemaking. The comments we received on this topic, as well as all other comments on considerations we should take into account when developing the SNF VBP Program's scoring methodology, along with their responses, appear below.
We will consider these comments further in future rulemaking.
As described above, we stated our intention to address the topic of quarterly feedback reports to SNFs related to measures specified under sections 1888(g)(1) and (2) of the Act in future rulemaking. We also stated that we intend to address how to notify SNFs of the adjustments to their PPS payments based on their performance scores and ranking under the SNF VBP Program, in accordance with the requirement in section 1888(h)(7) of the Act, in future rulemaking.
We invited public comment on the best means by which to so notify SNFs. We responded to comments on this topic below in the “SNF-Specific Performance Information” subsection.
As described above in reference to the Hospital VBP Program's scoring methodology, we use a linear exchange function to translate a hospital's Total Performance Score under that Program into the percentage multiplier to be applied to each Medicare discharge claim submitted by the hospital during the applicable FY. We refer readers to the Hospital Inpatient VBP Program Final Rule (76 FR 26531 through 26534) for detailed discussion of the Hospital VBP Program's Exchange Function, as well as responses to public comments on this issue.
We believe we could consider adopting a similar exchange function methodology to translate SNF performance scores into value-based incentive payments under the SNF VBP Program, and we invited comment on whether we should do so. However, as we did for the Hospital VBP Program, we believe we would need to consider the appropriate form and slope of the exchange function to determine how best to reward high performance and encourage SNFs to improve the quality of care provided to Medicare beneficiaries. As illustrated in figure 1, we could consider the following four mathematical exchange function options: Straight line (linear); concave curve (cube root function); convex curve (cube function); and S-shape (logistic function), and we seek comment on what form of the exchange function we should consider implementing if we adopt such a function under the SNF VBP Program.
We also invited comment on what considerations we should take into account when determining the appropriate form of the exchange function under the SNF VBP Program. We stated our intention to consider how such options would distribute the value-based incentive payments among SNFs, the potential differences between the value-based incentive payment amounts for SNFs that perform poorly and SNFs that perform very well, the different marginal incentives created by the different exchange function slopes, and the relative importance of having the exchange function be as simple and straightforward as possible. We requested public comments on what additional considerations, if any, we should take into account. The comments we received on this topic, with their responses, appear below.
We will consider these comments further in future rulemaking.
Sections 1888(h)(5) and (6) of the Act outline several requirements for value-based incentive payments under the SNF VBP Program, including the value-based incentive payment percentage that must be determined for each SNF and the funding available for value-based incentive payments.
We stated our intention to address this topic in future rulemaking. A discussion of the general comments that we received on the SNF Value-Based incentive payments, and our responses to those comments, appears below.
We will consider these comments further in future rulemaking.
Section 1888(h)(9)(A) of the Act requires the Secretary to post information on the performance of individual SNFs under the SNF VBP Program on the
We stated our intention to address this topic in future rulemaking. We invited public comment on how we should display this SNF-specific performance information, whether we should allow SNFs an opportunity to review and correct the SNF-specific performance information that we will post on
We will consider these comments further in future rulemaking.
Section 1888(h)(9)(B) of the Act requires the Secretary to post aggregate information on the SNF VBP Program on the
We stated our intention to address this topic in future rulemaking. We invited public comment on the most appropriate form for posting this aggregate information to make such information easily understandable for the public. The comments we received on this topic, with their responses, appear below.
HHS has a number of initiatives designed to encourage and support the adoption of health information technology and to promote nationwide health information exchange (HIE) to improve health care. As discussed in the August 2013 Statement “Principles and Strategies for Accelerating Health Information Exchange” (available at
The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) has released a document entitled “Connecting Health and Care for the Nation: A Shared Nationwide Interoperability Roadmap Draft Version 1.0 (draft Roadmap) (available at
In addition, ONC has released the draft version of the 2015 Interoperability Standards Advisory (available at
We encourage stakeholders to utilize HIE and certified health IT to effectively and efficiently help providers improve internal care delivery practices, support management of care across the continuum, enable the reporting of electronically specified clinical quality measures (eCQMs), and improve efficiencies and reduce unnecessary costs. As adoption of certified health IT increases and interoperability standards continue to mature, HHS will seek to reinforce standards through relevant policies and programs.
The comments we received on this topic, with their responses, appear below.
We seek to promote higher quality and more efficient health care for Medicare beneficiaries, and our efforts are furthered by QRPs coupled with public reporting of that information. Such QRPs already exist for various settings such as the Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting (HIQR) Program, the Hospital Outpatient Quality Reporting (HOQR) Program, the Physician Quality Reporting System, the Long-Term Care Hospital (LTCH) QRP, the Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) QRP, the Home Health Quality Reporting Program (HHQRP), and the Hospice Quality Reporting Program (HQRP). We have also implemented QRPs for home health agencies (HHAs) that are based on conditions of participation, and an ESRD QIP and a Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) Program that link payment to performance.
SNFs are providers that must meet conditions of participation for Medicare to receive Medicare payments. Some SNFs are also certified under Medicaid as nursing facilities (NFs), and these types of long-term care facilities furnish services to both Medicare beneficiaries and Medicaid enrollees. SNFs provide short-term skilled nursing services, including but not limited to rehabilitative therapy, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language pathology services. Such services are provided to beneficiaries who are recovering from surgical procedures, such as hip and knee replacements, or from medical conditions, such as stroke and pneumonia. SNF services are provided when needed to maintain or improve a beneficiary's current condition, or to prevent a condition from worsening. The care provided in a SNF (as a free-standing facility or part of a hospital), is aimed at enabling the beneficiary to maintain or improve his/her health and to function independently. SNF care is a benefit under Medicare Part A and such care is covered for up to 100 days in a benefit period if all coverage requirements are met.
Section 1888(e)(6)(B)(i)(II) of the Act requires that each SNF submit, for FYs beginning on or after the specified application date (as defined in section 1899B(a)(2)(E) of the Act), data on quality measures specified under section 1899B(c)(1) of the Act and data on resource use and other measures specified under section 1899B(d)(1) of the Act in a manner and within the timeframes specified by the Secretary. In addition, section 1888(e)(6)(B)(i)(III) of the Act requires, for FYs beginning on or after October 1, 2018, that each SNF submit standardized patient assessment data required under section 1899B(b)(1) of the Act in a manner and within the timeframes specified by the Secretary. Section 1888(e)(6)(A)(i) of the Act requires that, for FYs beginning with FY 2018, if a SNF does not submit data, as applicable, on quality and resource use and other measures in accordance with section 1888(e)(6)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and on standardized patient assessment in accordance with section 1888(e)(6)(B)(i)(III) of the Act for such FY, the Secretary reduce the market basket percentage described in section 1888(e)(5)(B)(ii) of the Act by 2 percentage points.
The IMPACT Act adds section 1899B to the Act that imposes new data reporting requirements for certain PAC providers, including SNFs. Sections 1899B(c)(1) and 1899B(d)(1) of the Act collectively require that the Secretary specify quality measures and resource use and other measures with respect to certain domains not later than the specified application date in section 1899B(a)(2)(E) of the Act that applies to each measure domain and PAC provider setting. The IMPACT Act also amends section 1886(e)(6) of the Act, to require the Secretary to reduce the PPS payments to a SNF that does not submit the data required in a form and manner, and at a time, specified by the Secretary. Section 1886(e)(6)(A)(i) of the Act would require the Secretary in a FY beginning with FY 2018 to reduce by 2 percentage points the market basket percentage increase as adjusted by the productivity adjustment for SNFs that do not submit the required data.
Under the SNF QRP, we proposed that the general timeline and sequencing of measure implementation would occur as follows: (1) Specification of measures; (2) proposal and finalization of measures through notice-and-comment rulemaking; (3) SNF submission of data on the adopted measures; analysis and processing of the submitted data; (4) notification to SNFs regarding their quality reporting compliance with respect to a particular FY; (5) review of any reconsideration requests; and (6) imposition of a payment reduction in a particular FY for failure to satisfactorily submit data with respect to that FY. We also proposed that any payment reductions that are taken for a FY for the QRP would begin approximately 1 year after the end of the data submission period for that FY and approximately 2 years after we first adopt the measure.
This timeline, which is similar in the other QRPs, reflects operational and other practical constraints, including the time needed to specify and adopt valid and reliable measures, collect the data, and determine whether a SNF has complied with our quality reporting requirements. It also takes into consideration our desire to give SNFs enough notice of new data reporting obligations so that they are prepared to start reporting the data in a timely fashion. Therefore, we stated our intention to follow the same timing and sequence of events for measures specified under section 1899B(c)(1) and (d)(1) of the Act that we currently follow for the other QRPs. We stated our intention to specify each of these measures no later than the specified application dates set forth in section 1899B(a)(2)(E) of the Act and proposed to adopt them consistent with the requirements in the Act and Administrative Procedure Act. To the extent that we finalize to adopt a measure for the SNF QRP that satisfies an IMPACT Act measure domain, we stated our intention to require SNFs to report data on the measure for the FY that begins 2 years after the specified application date for that measure. Likewise, we stated our intention to require SNFs to begin reporting any other data specifically required under the IMPACT Act for the FY that begins 2 years after we adopt requirements that would govern the submission of that data.
We received multiple public comments pertaining to the general timeline and plan for implementation of the IMPACT Act, sequencing of measure implementation, standardization of PAC assessment tools, and timing of payment consequences for the failure to comply with reporting requirements. The following is a summary of the comments received on this topic and our responses.
We will also continue to provide information about measures at
In addition, in implementing the IMPACT Act requirements, we will follow the strategy for identifying cross-cutting measures, timelines for data collection and timelines for reporting as outlined in the IMPACT Act. As described more fully above, the IMPACT Act requires CMS to specify measures that relate to at least five stated quality domains and three stated resource use and other measure domains. The IMPACT Act also outlines timelines for data collection and timelines for reporting. In addition, we must follow all processes in place for adoption of measures including the MAP and the notice and comment rulemaking process. In our selection and specification of measures, we employ a transparent process in which we seek input from stakeholders and national experts and engage in a process that allows for pre-rulemaking input on each measure, as required by section 1890A of the Act. This process is based on a private-public partnership, and it occurs via the MAP. The MAP is composed of multi-stakeholder groups convened by the NQF, our current contractor under section 1890 of the Act, to provide input on the selection of quality and efficiency measures described in section 1890(b)(7)(B). The NQF must convene these stakeholders and provide us with the stakeholders' input on the selection of such measures. We, in turn, must take this input into consideration in selecting such measures. In addition, the Secretary must make available to the public by December 1 of each year a list of such measures that the Secretary is considering under Title XVIII of the Act. Additionally, proposed measures and specifications are to be announced through the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) process in which proposed rules are published in the
With regard to the commenter's suggestion that a common assessment tool be developed for PAC settings, we wish to clarify that while the IMPACT Act requires the modification of PAC assessment instruments to revise or replace certain existing patient assessment data with standardized patient assessment data as soon as practicable, it does not require a single data collection tool. We intend to modify the existing PAC assessment instruments as soon as practicable to ensure the collection of standardized data. While we agree that it is possible that within the PAC assessment instruments certain sections could incorporate a standardized assessment data collection tool, for example, the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), we have not yet concluded that this kind of modification of the PAC assessment instruments is necessary.
All proposed and finalized changes to the PAC instruments are, and will
As provided at section 1888(e)(6)(A)(ii) of the Act, depending on the market basket percentage for a particular year, the 2 percentage point reduction under section 1888(e)(6)(A)(i) of the Act may result in this percentage, after application of the productivity adjustment under section 1888(e)(5)(B)(ii) of the Act, being less than 0.0 percent for a FY and may result in payment rates under the SNF PPS being less than payment rates for the preceding FY. In addition, as set forth at section 1888(e)(6)(A)(iii) of the Act, any reduction based on failure to comply with the SNF QRP reporting requirements applies only to the particular FY involved, and any such reduction must not be taken into account in computing the SNF PPS payment rates for subsequent FYs.
For purposes of meeting the reporting requirements under the SNF QRP, section 1888(e)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act states that SNFs or other facilities described in section 1888(e)(7)(B) of the Act (other than a CAH) may submit the resident assessment data required under section 1819(b)(3) of the Act using the standard instrument designated by the state under section 1819(e)(5) of the Act. Currently, the resident assessment instrument is titled the MDS 3.0. To the extent data required for submission under subclause (II) or (III) of section 1888(e)(6)(B)(i) of the Act duplicates other data required to be submitted under clause (i)(I), section 1888(e)(6)(B)(iii) provides that the submission of data under subclause (II) or (III) is to be in lieu of the submission of such data under clause (I), unless the Secretary makes a determination that such duplication is necessary to avoid delay in the implementation of section 1899B of the Act taking into account the different specified application dates under section 1899B(a)(2)(E) of the Act.
In addition to requiring a QRP for SNFs under new section 1888(e)(6), the IMPACT Act requires feedback to SNFs and public reporting of their performance. More specifically, section 1899B(f)(1) of the Act requires the Secretary to provide confidential feedback reports to SNFs on their performance on the quality measures and resource use and other measures specified under that section. The Secretary must make such confidential feedback reports available to SNFs beginning 1 year after the specified application date that applies to the measures in that section and, to the extent feasible, no less frequently than on a quarterly basis, except in the case of measures reported on an annual basis, as to which the confidential feedback reports may be made available annually.
Section 1899B(g)(1) of the Act requires the Secretary to provide for the public reporting of SNF performance on the quality measures specified under section 1899B(c)(1) of the Act and the resource use and other measures specified under section 1899B(d)(1) of the Act by establishing procedures for making the performance data available to the public. Such procedures must ensure, including through a process consistent with the process applied under section 1886(b)(3)(B)(viii)(VII) of the Act, that SNFs have the opportunity to review and submit corrections to the data and other information before it is made public as required by section 1899B(g)(2) of the Act. Section 1899B(g)(3) of the Act requires that the data and information is made publicly available beginning no later than 2 years after the specified application date applicable to such a measure and SNFs. Finally, section 1899B(g)(4)(B) of the Act requires that such procedures must provide that the data and information described in section 1899B(g)(1) of the Act for quality and resource use measures be made publicly available consistent with sections 1819(i) and 1919(i) of the Act.
We strive to promote high quality and efficiency in the delivery of health care to the beneficiaries we serve. Performance improvement leading to the highest quality health care requires continuous evaluation to identify and address performance gaps and reduce the unintended consequences that may arise in treating a large, vulnerable, and aging population. QRPs, coupled with public reporting of quality information, are critical to the advancement of health care quality improvement efforts.
Valid, reliable, relevant quality measures are fundamental to the effectiveness of our QRPs. Therefore, selection of quality measures is a priority for CMS in all of its QRPs.
We proposed to adopt for the SNF QRP three measures that we are specifying under section 1899(B)(c)(1) of the Act for purposes of meeting the following three domains: (1) Functional status, cognitive function, and changes in function and cognitive function; (2) skin integrity and changes in skin integrity; and (3) incidence of major falls. These measures align with the CMS Quality Strategy,
•
•
•
In deciding to propose these measures, we also took into account national priorities, including those established by the National Priorities Partnership (
These measures also incorporate common standards and definitions that can be used across post-acute care settings to allow for the exchange of data among post-acute care providers, to provide access to longitudinal information for such providers to facilitate coordinated and improved outcomes, and to enable comparison of such assessment data across all such providers as required by section 1899B(a) of the Act.
We received comments on the topic of the General Considerations Used for Selection of Quality Measures for the SNF QRP. The following is a summary of the comments received and our responses.
On February 5th, 2015, we made publicly available a list of Measures Under Consideration (called the “List of Ad Hoc Measures Under Consideration for the Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation (IMPACT) Act of 2014”) (MUC list) as part of an Ad Hoc MAP convened by the NQF. The MAP Post-Acute Care/Long-Term Care Workgroup convened on February 9, 2015 to “review the measures technical properties as they are adapted for use in new settings and whether the new settings impact the measures' adherence to the NQF Scientific Acceptability criterion.”
The MAP issued a pre-rulemaking report on March 6, 2015. This Pre-Rulemaking Report is available for download at
Section 1899B(j) of the Act requires that we allow for stakeholder input as part of the pre-rulemaking process. Therefore, we sought stakeholder input on the measures we proposed to adopt in this final rule as follows: We implemented a public mail box for the submission of comments in January 2015,
We also, as part of our measure development process for the proposed measures, sought public input at the February 2015 Special Open Door Forum, during which we provided information pertaining to the IMPACT Act and the measures that were listed as Measures Under Consideration for the IMPACT Act of 2014 for review by the MAP. We also advised that interested parties could submit feedback and questions on the measures and other topics, via our mailbox,
For the SNF QRP, for the purpose of streamlining the rulemaking process, we proposed that when we adopt a measure for the SNF QRP for a payment determination, this measure would be automatically retained in the SNF QRP for all subsequent payment determinations unless we propose to remove, suspend, or replace the measure.
Section 1899B(h)(1) of the Act provides that the Secretary may remove, suspend or add a quality measure or resource use or other measure specified under section 1899B(c)(1) or (d)(1) of the Act so long as the Secretary publishes a justification for the action in the
We also noted that under section 1899B(h)(2) of the Act, in the case of a quality measure or resource use or other measure for which there is a reason to believe that the continued collection raises possible safety concerns or would cause other unintended consequences, the Secretary may promptly suspend or remove the measure and publish the justification for the suspension or removal in the
For any measure that meets this criterion (that is, a measure that raises safety concerns), we will take immediate action to remove the measure from SNF QRP, and, in addition to publishing a justification in the next rulemaking cycle, will immediately notify SNFs and the public through the usual communication channels, including listening session, memos, email notification, and web postings.
We invited public comment on this proposed policy for Retaining SNF QRP Measures for Future Payment Determinations. The following is a summary of the comments received and our responses.
After consideration of the public comments received, we are finalizing the adoption of the policy for retaining SNF QRP Measures for Future Payment Determinations as proposed.
Section 1899B(e)(2) required that quality measures under the IMPACT Act selected for the SNF QRP must be endorsed by the NQF unless they meet the criteria for exception in section 1899B(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The NQF is a voluntary consensus standard-setting organization with a diverse representation of consumer, purchaser, provider, academic, clinical, and other healthcare stakeholder organizations. The NQF was established to standardize healthcare quality measurement and reporting through its consensus development process (
The NQF solicits information from measure stewards for annual reviews and to review measures for continued endorsement in a specific 3-year cycle. In this measure maintenance process, the measure steward is responsible for updating and maintaining the currency and relevance of the measure and for confirming existing specifications to the NQF on an annual basis. As part of the ad hoc review process, the ad hoc review requester and the measure steward are responsible for submitting evidence for review by a NQF TEP which, in turn, provides input to the Consensus Standards Approval Committee which then makes a decision on endorsement status and/or specification changes for the measure, practice, or event.
The NQF regularly maintains its endorsed measures through annual and triennial reviews, which may result in the NQF making updates to the measures. We believe that it is important to have in place a subregulatory process to incorporate nonsubstantive updates made by the NQF into the measure specifications as we have adopted for the Hospital IQR Program so that these measures remain up-to-date. We also recognize that some changes the NQF might make to its endorsed measures are substantive in nature and might not be appropriate for adoption using a subregulatory process.
Therefore, in the FY 2013 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (77 FR 53504 through 53505), we finalized a policy under which we use a subregulatory process to make nonsubstantive updates to measures used for the Hospital IQR Program. For what constitutes substantive versus nonsubstantive changes, we expect to make this determination on a case-by-case basis. Examples of nonsubstantive changes to measures might include updated diagnosis or procedure codes, medication updates for categories of medications, broadening of age ranges, and exclusions for a measure (such as the addition of a hospice exclusion to the 30-day mortality measures). We believe that nonsubstantive changes may include updates to NQF-endorsed measures based upon changes to guidelines upon which the measures are based.
Therefore, we proposed to use rulemaking to adopt substantive updates made to measures as we have for the Hospital IQR Program. Examples of changes that we might consider to be substantive would be those in which the changes are so significant that the measure is no longer the same measure, or when a standard of performance assessed by a measure becomes more stringent (for example, changes in acceptable timing of medication, procedure/process, or test administration). Another example of a substantive change would be where the NQF has extended its endorsement of a previously endorsed measure to a new setting, such as extending a measure from the inpatient setting to hospice. These policies regarding what is considered substantive versus nonsubstantive would apply to all measures in the SNF QRP. We also note that the NQF process incorporates an opportunity for public comment and engagement in the measure maintenance process.
We believe this policy adequately balances our need to incorporate updates to the SNF QRP measures in the most expeditious manner possible while preserving the public's ability to comment on updates that so fundamentally change an endorsed measure that it is no longer the same measure that we originally adopted.
We invited public comment on our Proposed Process for the Adoption of Changes to SNF QRP Program Measures. The following is a summary of the comments received and our responses.
For the FY 2018 SNF QRP and subsequent years, we proposed to adopt three cross-setting quality measures to meet the requirements of the IMPACT Act. These measures address the following domains: (1) Skin integrity and changes in skin integrity; (2) incidence of major falls; and (3) functional status, cognitive function, and changes in function and cognitive function, which are all required measure domains under section 1899B(c)(1) of the Act. The proposed quality measure addressing skin integrity and changes in skin integrity is the NQF-endorsed measure, Percent of Residents or Patients with Pressure
The proposed quality measures addressing the domains of incidence of major falls and functional status, cognitive function, and changes in function and cognitive function, are not currently NQF-endorsed for the SNF population. We reviewed the NQF's endorsed measures and were unable to identify any NQF-endorsed cross-setting quality measures that focused on these domains. We are also unaware of any other cross-setting quality measures that have been endorsed or adopted by another consensus organization.
Section 1899B(e)(2) of the Act requires we use a NQF-endorsed measure unless the measure meets the exception. In the case of a specified area or medical topic determined by the Secretary for which a feasible and practical measure has not been NQF endorsed, the Secretary may specify a measure that is not so endorsed as long as due consideration is given to a measure that has been endorsed or adopted by a consensus organization identified by the Secretary.
We received several general comments pertaining to the topic of our use of measures that are not endorsed or are not endorsed for use in the SNF resident population, as well as processes related to our adoption of such measures, their reliability and processes pertaining to the NQF endorsement process as well as the MAP review process. The following is a summary of the comments received and our responses.
We proposed to adopt for the SNF QRP, beginning with the FY 2018 payment determination, the Percent of Residents or Patients with Pressure Ulcers That Are New or Worsened (Short Stay) (NQF #0678) measure as a cross-setting quality measure that satisfies the skin integrity and changes in skin integrity domain. This measure assesses the percentage of short-stay residents or patients in SNFs, IRFs, and LTCHs with Stage 2 through 4 pressure ulcers that are new or worsened since admission.
Pressure ulcers are a serious medical condition that result in pain, decreased quality of life, and increased mortality in aging populations.
Section 1899B(a)(1)(B) of the IMPACT Act requires that the data submitted on quality measures under section 1899B(c)(1) of the Act be standardized and interoperable across PAC settings, and section 1899B(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires that the measures be reported through the use of a PAC assessment instrument. These requirements are in line with the NQF Steering Committee report, which stated that “to understand the impact of pressure ulcers across settings, quality measures addressing prevention, incidence, and prevalence of pressure ulcers must be harmonized and aligned.”
A TEP convened by our measure development contractor provided input on the technical specifications of the quality measure, the Percent of Residents or Patients with Pressure Ulcers That Are New or Worsened (Short Stay) (NQF #0678), including the feasibility of implementing the measure across PAC settings. The TEP supported the measure's implementation across PAC settings and was also supportive of our efforts to standardize the measure for cross-setting development. The MAP also supported the use of the quality measure the Percent of Residents or Patients with Pressure Ulcers that are New or Worsened (Short Stay) (NQF #0678) in the SNF QRP as a cross-setting quality measure.
We proposed that the data for this quality measure would be collected using the MDS 3.0, currently submitted by SNFs through the Quality Improvement and Evaluation System (QIES) Assessment Submission and Processing (ASAP) system. We believe that this data collection method will minimize the reporting burden on SNFs because SNFs are already required to submit MDS data for multiple purposes, such as for payment purposes. For more information on SNF submission using the QIES ASAP system, readers are referred to
The data items that we proposed to calculate the quality measure, the Percent of Residents or Patients with Pressure Ulcers that are New or Worsened (Short Stay) (NQF #0678) include: M0800A (Worsening in Pressure Ulcer Status Since Prior Assessment (OBRA or scheduled PPS assessment) or Last Admission/Entry or Reentry, Stage 2), M0800B (Worsening in Pressure Ulcer Status Since Prior Assessment (OBRA or scheduled PPS assessment) or Last Admission/Entry or Reentry, Stage 3), and M0800C (Worsening in Pressure Ulcer Status Since Prior Assessment (OBRA or scheduled PPS assessment) or Last Admission/Entry or Reentry, Stage 4). This measure would be calculated at two points in time, at admission and discharge (see Form, Manner, and Timing of Quality Data Submission). The specifications and data items for the quality measure, the Percent of Residents or Patients with Pressure Ulcers that are New or Worsened (Short Stay) (NQF #0678) are available in the MDS 3.0 Quality Measures User's Manual available on our Web site at
We invited public comments on our proposal to adopt the Percent of Residents or Patients with Pressure Ulcers that are New or Worsened (Short Stay) (NQF #0678) for the SNF QRP for the FY 2018 payment determination and subsequent years. The following is a summary of the comments received and our responses.
One commenter was concerned that the measure is limited to only high risk
When developing the risk adjustment model for this measure, we reviewed the literature, conducted analyses to test additional risk factors, convened TEPs to seek stakeholder input, and obtained clinical guidance from subject matter experts and other stakeholders to identify additional risk factors. We have determined that risk adjustment is appropriate for this measure. Therefore, we have developed and implemented the risk adjustment model using the risk factors described above. Nonetheless, we will continue to analyze this measure as more data is collected and will consider changing the risk adjustment model, expanding the risk stratifications, and testing the inclusion of other risk factors as additional risk adjustors for future iterations of the measure. We will also take into consideration the TEP discussion and the commenter's feedback regarding the exclusion or risk adjustment for hospice patients and those at the end of life. As we transition to standardized data collection across PAC settings to meet the mandate of the IMPACT Act, we intend to continue our ongoing measure development and refinement activities to inform the ongoing evaluation of risk adjustment models and methodology. This continued refinement of the risk adjustment models will ensure that the measure remains valid and reliable to inform quality improvement within and across each PAC setting, and to fulfill the public reporting goals of QRPs, including the SNF QRP.
NQF is currently undertaking a 2-year trial period in which new measures and measures undergoing maintenance review will be assessed to determine if risk-adjusting for sociodemographic factors is appropriate for each measure. For 2 years, NQF will conduct a trial of a temporary policy change that will allow inclusion of sociodemographic factors in the risk-adjustment approach for some performance measures. At the conclusion of the trial, NQF will determine whether to make this policy change permanent. Measure developers must submit information such as analyses and interpretations as well as performance scores with and without sociodemographic factors in the risk adjustment model.
Furthermore, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) is conducting research to examine the impact of socioeconomic status on quality measures, resource use, and other measures under the Medicare program as directed by the IMPACT Act. We will closely examine the findings of these reports and related Secretarial recommendations and consider how they apply to our quality programs at such time as they are available.
We appreciate the commenters' concern that the SNF, LTCH, and IRF populations are not identical and that some differences may exist in the reliability and validity of the measure across settings. We are working towards standardizing data across PAC settings as mandated in the IMPACT Act. As such, we continue to conduct measure development and testing to explore the best way to standardize quality measures, while ensuring reliability and validity for the measures to appropriately account for the unique differences in populations across PAC settings.
One commenter specifically mentioned the frequency of assessments, highlighting the fact that the LTCH and IRF versions of the measure are calculated using two assessment time-points (admission and discharge), while the SNF version uses multiple assessment time-points. The commenter expressed concern that the higher frequency of assessments for the MDS could potentially result in higher rates of pressure ulcer counts for SNFs. Another commenter voiced particular concerns regarding differences in the look-back periods, for the items used on the IRF, SNF, and LTCH assessments (MDS=7-day assessment period, IRF=3-day assessment period, LTCH = 3-day assessment period) and suggested that this would result in different rates of detection of new or worsened ulcers. Commenters encouraged CMS to address all of these discrepancies, and suggested that we should switch to using only an admission and discharge assessment in the SNF version of the measure.
As to the concern that the pressure ulcer measure calculation is based on more frequent assessments in the SNF setting than in the LTCH and IRF settings, we wish to clarify that result of the measure calculation for all three PAC providers is the same. For all three PAC providers, the measure calculation ultimately shows the difference between the number of pressure ulcers present on admission and the number of new or worsened pressure ulcers present on discharge. While SNF measure calculation arrives at that number differently than does the measure calculation in the IRF and LTCH settings, ultimately all three settings report the same result—as noted, the difference between the number of pressure ulcers present on admission and the new or worsened pressure ulcers at discharge. To explain, in IRFs and LTCHs, pressure ulcer assessment data is obtained only at two points in time—on admission and on discharge. Therefore, the calculation of the measure includes all new or worsened pressure ulcers since admission. In contrast, in SNFs pressure ulcer assessment data is obtained on admission, at intervals during the stay (referred to as “interim assessments”), and at discharge. Each interim assessment and the discharge assessment only look back to whether there were new or worsened pressure ulcers since the last interim assessment. The sum of number of new or worsened pressure ulcers identified at each interim assessment and at the time of discharge yields the total number of new or worsened pressure ulcers that
In regards to the commenter's concern about different look-back periods, we acknowledge that although the LTCH CARE Data Set and IRF-PAI allow up to the third day starting on the day of admission as the assessment period and the MDS allows for an assessment period of admission up to day 7, we note that the training manuals for SNFs, LTCHs and IRFs provide specific and equivalent-coding instructions related to the items used to calculate this measure (found in Section M—skin conditions for all three assessments). These instructions ensure that the assessment of skin integrity occurs at the initiation of patients' or residents' PAC stays regardless of setting. All three manuals direct providers to complete the skin assessment for pressure ulcers present on admission as close to admission as possible, ensuring a harmonized approach to the timing of the initial skin assessment. Regardless of differences in the allowed assessment periods, providers across PAC settings should adhere to best clinical practices, established standards of care, and the instructions in their respective training manuals, to ensure that skin integrity information is collected as close to admission as possible. Although the manual instructions are harmonized to ensure assessment at the beginning of the stay, based on the commenter's feedback, we will take into consideration the incorporation of uniform assessment periods for this section of the assessments.
In a related comment, a commenter expressed concern regarding differences in the populations across quality measures in the SNF QRP. The commenters stated that the falls measure (NQF #0674) and function measure (NQF #2631) include only Medicare FFS residents, while the pressure ulcer measure (NQF #0678) includes all short-stay NH residents. The commenter mentioned that this inconsistency could result in confusion for providers because of the varying denominators across measures.
As part of our ongoing measure development efforts, we are considering a future update to the numerator of the quality measure, the Percent of Residents or Patients with Pressure Ulcers that are New or Worsened (Short Stay) (NQF #0678). This update would require PAC providers to report the development of unstageable pressure ulcers, including suspected deep tissue injuries (sDTIs). Under this potential change we are considering, the numerator of the quality measure would be updated to include unstageable pressure ulcers, including sDTIs that are new/developed in the facility, as well as Stage 1 or 2 pressure ulcers that become unstageable due to slough or eschar (indicating progression to a stage 3 or 4 pressure ulcer) after admission. SNFs are already required to complete the unstageable pressure ulcer items on the MDS 3.0. As such, this update would require a change in the way the measure is calculated but would not increase the data collection burden for SNFs.
A TEP convened by our measure development contractor strongly recommended that CMS update the specifications for the measure to include these pressure ulcers in the numerator, although it acknowledged that unstageable pressure ulcers and sDTIs cannot and should not be assigned a numeric stage. The TEP also recommended that a Stage 1 or 2 pressure ulcer that becomes unstageable due to slough or eschar should be
We invited public comments to inform our consideration of the inclusion of unstageable pressure ulcers, including sDTIs in the numerator of the quality measure, the Percent of Residents or Patients with Pressure Ulcers that are New or Worsened (Short Stay) (NQF #0678) as part of our future measure development efforts. The following is a summary of the comments received and our responses.
One commenter requested more information about how this change would be incorporated into the measure specifications. The commenter also requested more information regarding the impact this change would have on the reliability and validity of the measure, as well as how it may impact the risk adjustment methodology. Finally the commenter encouraged CMS to submit any proposed changes through NQF review and specify all details in future rule making. Commenters also encouraged CMS to update the coding instructions for the RAI manual if this change is made, apply this change across all PAC settings, and gather additional stakeholder and expert input on this change prior to implementation.
In regard to the commenters' concerns regarding sDTIs, we believe that it is important to do a thorough admission assessment on each resident or patient who is admitted to a SNF, including a thorough skin assessment documenting the presence of any pressure ulcers of any kind—including sDTIs. When considering the addition of sDTIs to the measure numerator, we convened cross-setting TEPs in June and November 2013, and obtained input from clinicians, experts, and other stakeholders. While we agree that ongoing research is needed, sDTIs are a serious medical condition and given their potential impact on mortality, morbidity, and quality of life, it may be detrimental to the quality of care to exclude them from future quality measures. We thank the commenters for their feedback and we will take into account the recommendations regarding the challenges in determining whether an sDTI at admission is facility acquired or not, the difficulty in coding sDTIs, and the confusion surrounding pressure ulcers that are unavoidable or times when prevention is not possible.
We proposed to adopt beginning with the FY 2018 SNF QRP, an application to the SNF setting of the Percent of Residents Experiencing One or More Falls with Major Injury (Long Stay) (NQF #0674) measure that satisfies the incidence of major falls domain. This outcome measure reports the percentage of residents who have experienced falls with major injury during episodes ending in a 3-month period. This measure was developed by CMS and is NQF-endorsed for long-stay residents of NFs.
Research indicates that fall-related injuries are the most common cause of accidental death in people aged 65 and older, responsible for approximately 41 percent of accidental deaths annually.
Falls also represent a significant cost burden to the entire health care system, with injurious falls accounting for 6 percent of medical expenses among those age 65 and older.
According to Morse, 78 percent of falls are anticipated physiologic falls, which are falls among individuals who scored high on a risk assessment scale, meaning their risk could have been identified in advance of the fall.
Although the quality measure, the Percent of Residents Experiencing One or More Falls with Major Injury (Long Stay) (NQF #0674) is not currently endorsed for the SNF setting, we reviewed the NQF's consensus endorsed measures and were unable to identify any NQF-endorsed cross-setting quality measures for that setting that are focused on falls with major injury. We are aware of one NQF-endorsed measure, Falls with Injury (NQF #0202), which is a measure designed for adult acute inpatient and rehabilitation patients capturing “all documented patient falls with an injury level of minor or greater on eligible unit types in a calendar quarter, reported as injury falls per 100 days.”
A TEP convened by our measure development contractor provided input on the technical specifications of an application of the quality measure, the Percent of Residents Experiencing One or More Falls with Major Injury (Long Stay) (NQF #0674), including the feasibility of implementing the measure across PAC settings. The TEP was supportive of the implementation of this measure across PAC settings and was also supportive of our efforts to standardize this measure for cross-
More information on the NQF-endorsed quality measure, the Percent of Residents Experiencing One or More Falls with Major Injury (Long Stay) (NQF #0674) is available at
We proposed that data for this quality measure would be collected using the MDS 3.0, currently submitted by SNFs through the QIES ASAP system for the reason noted previously.
The data items that we will use to calculate this proposed quality measure include: J1800 (Any Falls Since Admission/Entry (OBRA or Scheduled PPS) or Reentry or Prior Assessment, whichever is more recent); and J1900 (Number of Falls Since Admission/Entry (OBRA or Scheduled PPS) or Reentry or Prior Assessment, whichever is more recent). This measure will be calculated at the time of discharge (see Proposed Form, Manner, and Timing of Quality Data Submission). The specifications for an application of the quality measure, the Percent of Residents Experiencing One or More Falls with Major Injury (Long Stay) (NQF #0674) for the SNF population are available on our SNF QRP measures and technical Web site at
We referred readers to the Form, Manner, and Timing of Quality Data Submission section of the FY 2016 SNF PPS proposed rule (79 FR 22076 through 22077) for more information on the proposed data collection and submission timeline for this proposed quality measure.
We invited public comments on our proposal to adopt an application of the quality measure, the Percent of Residents Experiencing One or More Falls with Major Injury (Long Stay) (NQF #0674) for the SNF QRP beginning with the FY 2018 payment determination. The comments we received on this topic, with their responses, appear below.
While we acknowledge that resident characteristics that elevate risk for falls with major injury vary across the SNF population, a TEP convened in 2009 by the measurement development contractor concluded that risk adjustment of this quality measure concept was inappropriate because it is each facility's responsibility to take steps to reduce the rate of injurious falls, especially since such events are considered to be “never events.” We note that the PAC PRD did not analyze falls with major injury, as falls with major injury was not an assessment item that was tested. However, as the commenter pointed out, the prevalence
The numerator, denominator, and exclusions definitions provided to the TEP in 2015 are virtually identical to the specifications we proposed to adopt for this measure, and did not include risk adjustment. Two out of 11 members of the 2015 TEP supported risk adjustment of the falls measure for cognitive impairment, but it was not the majority position. For more information on the 2015 TEP, please visit
We believe factors that increase the risk of falling, such as cognitive impairment, should be included by facilities in their risk assessment to support proper care planning. As cited in the proposed rule, research suggests that 78 percent of falls are anticipated falls, occurring in individuals who could have been identified as at-risk for a fall using a risk-assessment scale. Risk adjusting for falls with major injury could unintentionally lead to insufficient risk prevention by the provider. As required by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2007, the Hospital Acquired Conditions-Present On Admission (HAC-POA) Indicator Reporting provision requires a quality adjustment in the Medicare Severity-Diagnosis Related Groups (MS-DRG) payments for certain HACs, which include falls and trauma, and these payment reductions are not risk adjusted. Furthermore, we note that the State Operations Manual (SOM) provides guidance for SNFs to assess resident risk for falls with the intent to aid providers in prevention of falls. The need for risk assessment, based on varying risk factors among residents, does not remove the obligation of providers to minimize that risk.
With regard to the MAP recommendation to risk adjust this measure cited by the commenter, the MAP feedback regarding risk adjustment for this quality measure applied to the home health setting, not to the SNF setting. We also refer readers to a more recent Cochrane review of 60 randomized controlled trials, which found that within care facilities, multifactorial interventions have the potential to reduce rates of falls and risk of falls.
NQF is currently undertaking a two-year trial period in which new measures and measures undergoing maintenance review will be assessed to determine if risk-adjusting for sociodemographic factors is appropriate for each measure. For two-years, NQF will conduct a trial of a temporary policy change that will allow inclusion of sociodemographic factors in the risk-adjustment approach for some performance measures. At the conclusion of the trial, NQF will determine whether to make this policy change permanent. Measure developers must submit information such as analyses and interpretations as well as performance scores with and without sociodemographic factors in the risk adjustment model.
Furthermore, the ASPE is conducting research to examine the impact of socioeconomic status on quality measures, resource use, and other measures under the Medicare program as directed by the IMPACT Act. We will closely examine the findings of these reports and related Secretarial recommendations and consider how they apply to our quality programs at such time as they are available.
This proposed measure is a cross-setting measure that we believe satisfies the measure required under section 1899B(c)(1)(D) of the Act domain, Incidence of Major Falls. For the reasons
With regard to the adequacy of the measure's testing for use in the short-stay or SNF population, the item-level testing during the development of the MDS 3.0 showed near-perfect inter-rater reliability for the MDS item (J1900C) used to identify falls with major injury; therefore, we disagree with the commenter's suggestion as to the strength of the item-level testing.
We also want to clarify that the items used to calculate the measure are already included on the existing MDS 3.0 item sets, for example, both OBRA and PPS assessments. The necessary falls items will also be added to the proposed SNF PPS Part A Discharge assessment to ensure the capture of falls with major injury at the end of the SNF Part A covered stay for residents who continue in the SNF after ending their SNF Part A covered stay.
Other than the proposed SNF PPS Part A Discharge assessment, the implementation of the proposed application of the quality measure, the Percent of Residents Experiencing One or More Falls with Major Injury (Long Stay) (NQF #0674) does not represent new data collection for SNFs. SNFs have been submitting data for these items as part of the Nursing Home Quality Initiative since October 2010.
We note that specifications for the application of the quality measure, the Percent of Residents Experiencing One or More Falls with Major Injury (Long Stay) (NQF #0674) for the SNF population are available on our SNF QRP measures and technical Web site at
Another commenter asked about the extent to which the time horizon (that is, the time period during which the measure will be calculated) will differ across settings, and another suggested that the exclusions listed in the specifications were different in different settings. One comment mistakenly asserted that the item used in the equivalent IRF specifications asks about the occurrence of two or more falls in the past year and whether a patient had major surgery, in contrast to the SNF specifications for the measure. Another commenter expressed concern regarding differences in the populations across quality measures in the SNF QRP. The commenters mentioned that the falls measure (NQF #0674) and function measure (NQF #2631) include only Medicare FFS residents, while the pressure ulcer measure (NQF #0678) includes all short-stay SNF residents. The commenter mentioned that this inconsistency could result in confusion for providers because of the varying denominators across measures.
We appreciate the comment pertaining to consistent data collection across the reporting programs. We believe that quality measures that include all residents in a facility are better able to capture the health outcomes of that facility's residents, and thus, including all residents in quality reporting is important. Regarding expansion of the population used to calculate this measure to include payer sources beyond Medicare Part A, we agree with the commenter's position and intend to take this under consideration through future measure development and rulemaking.
We wish to clarify that this falls measure is not currently used for the short-stay nursing home population as part of Nursing Home Compare and that this measure will be calculated using only Medicare Part A data collected by the SNF.
With regard to the use of standardized items for this measure, until now, the post-acute assessment instruments have not included standardized items for falls with major injury. Although the quality measure, an Application of Percent of Residents Experiencing One or More Falls with Major Injury (Long Stay) (NQF #0674), and the data collection items used to calculate this measure are harmonized across settings and assessment instruments, we believe that there are constraints in current data collection (that is, use of only admission and discharge assessments in IRFs and LTCHs vs. admission/re-entry, interim, and discharge assessments in SNFs.). For the purposes of measure calculation, we are able to compensate for this data collection approach to ensure a uniform application of the measure where currently practicable for providers and feasible for the measure so that we have harmonized the measure's calculation across all PAC settings. Although we believe that we have applied the measure consistently across the programs, to enable efficiencies in the measure's calculation, we intend to address any outstanding standardization issues through future rulemaking.
We would like to clarify that the occurrence of two or more falls in the past year and major surgery prior to admission are risk-adjusters for the function outcomes measures proposed in the FY 2016 IRF PPS proposed rule and are not related to the cross-setting falls measure, and therefore, are not included in SNF QRP version of the falls measure. We also wish to clarify that as proposed, the application of this measure for the SNF QRP will include a look-back from the time of discharge from the SNF Part A covered stay to the time of admission, so that the measure's calculation and time frame used will be consistent with the other QRPs. We note that the assessment at discharge is an actual discharge from the facility or a discharge from the SNF Part A covered stay with a transition in place. We also disagree that the exclusions listed in the measure specification for each setting are not standardized. Specifically, all three settings only exclude cases due to missing data.
Having carefully considered the comments we received on the application of the Percent of Residents Experiencing One or More Falls with Major Injury (Long Stay) (NQF #0674) measure, we are finalizing the adoption of this measure for use in the SNF QRP.
We proposed to adopt, beginning with the FY 2018 SNF QRP, an application of the quality measure Percent of Long-Term Care Hospital Patients with an Admission and Discharge Functional Assessment and a Care Plan that Addresses Function (NQF #2631; endorsed on July 23, 2015) as a cross-setting quality measure that satisfies the functional status, cognitive function, and changes in functional status and cognitive function domain. This quality measure reports the percent of patients or residents with both an admission and a discharge functional assessment and an activity (self-care or mobility) goal that addresses function. The new self-care and mobility items are included in a new section of the MDS titled, Section GG.
The National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics' Subcommittee on
The majority of individuals who receive PAC services, including care provided by SNFs, HHAs, IRFs, and LTCHs, have functional limitations and many of these individuals are at risk for further decline in function due to limited mobility and ambulation.
Given the variation in patient or resident populations across the PAC settings, the functional activities that are typically assessed by clinicians for each type of PAC provider may vary. For example, rolling left and right in bed is an example of a functional activity that may be most relevant for low-functioning patients or residents who are chronically critically ill. However, certain functional activities such as eating, oral hygiene, lying to sitting on the side of the bed, toilet transfers, and walking or wheelchair mobility are important activities for patients or residents in each PAC setting.
Although, functional assessment data are currently collected by all four PAC providers and in NFs, this data collection has employed different assessment instruments, scales, and item definitions. The data cover similar topics, but are not standardized across PAC settings. The different sets of functional assessment items coupled with different rating scales makes communication about patient and resident functioning challenging when patients and residents transition from one type of setting to another. Collection of standardized functional assessment data across SNFs, HHAs, IRFs, and LTCHs using common data items would establish a common language for patient and resident functioning, which may facilitate communication and care coordination as patients and residents transition from one type of provider to another. The collection of standardized functional status data may also help improve patient and resident functioning during an episode of care by ensuring that basic daily activities are assessed for all PAC residents at the start and end of care and that at least one functional goal is established.
The functional assessment items included in the proposed functional status quality measure were originally developed and tested as part of the Post-Acute Care Payment Reform Demonstration version of the Continuity Assessment Record and Evaluation (CARE) Item Set, which was designed to standardize the assessment of a person's status, including functional status, across acute and post-acute settings (SNFs, HHAs, IRFs, and LTCHs). The functional status items on the CARE Item Set are daily activities that clinicians typically assess at the time of admission and/or discharge in order to determine patient's or resident's needs, evaluate patient or resident progress, and prepare patients, residents, and their families for a transition to home or to another setting.
The development of the CARE Item Set and a description and rationale for each item is described in a report entitled “The Development and Testing of the Continuity Assessment Record and Evaluation (CARE) Item Set: Final Report on the Development of the CARE Item Set: Volume 1 of 3.”
The functional status quality measure we proposed to adopt beginning with the FY 2018 SNF QRP is a process quality measure that is an application of the quality measure, Percent of Long-Term Care Hospital Patients with an Admission and Discharge Functional Assessment and a Care Plan that Addresses Function (NQF #2631; endorsed on July 23, 2015). This quality
This process measure requires the collection of admission and discharge functional status data by clinicians using standardized clinical assessment items, or data elements, which assess specific functional activities, that is, self-care and mobility activities. The self-care and mobility function activities are coded using a 6-level rating scale that indicates the resident's level of independence with the activity at both admission and discharge. A higher score indicates more independence.
For this quality measure, there must be documentation at the time of admission that at least one activity (function) goal is recorded for at least one of the standardized self-care or mobility function items using the 6-level rating scale. This indicates that an activity goal(s) has been established. Following an initial assessment, the clinical best practice would be to ensure that the resident's care plan reflected and included a plan to achieve such an activity goal(s). At the time of discharge, function is reassessed using the same 6-level rating scale, enabling the ability to evaluate success in achieving the resident's activity performance goals.
To the extent that a resident has an unplanned discharge, for example, for the purpose of being admitted to an acute care facility, the collection of discharge functional status data might not be feasible. Therefore, for patients or residents with unplanned discharges, admission functional status data and at least one treatment goal must be reported, but discharge functional status data are not required to be reported.
A TEP convened by the measure development contractor for CMS provided input on the technical specifications of this quality measure, including the feasibility of implementing the measure across PAC settings. The TEP was supportive of the implementation of this measure across PAC settings and was also supportive of our efforts to standardize this measure for cross-setting use. Additionally, the MAP conditionally supported the use of an application of the Percent of Long-Term Care Hospital Patients With an Admission and Discharge Functional Assessment and a Care Plan that Addresses Function (NQF #2631; endorsed on July 23, 2015) for use in the SNF QRP as a cross-setting measure. The MAP noted that this functional status measure addresses an IMPACT Act domain and a MAP PAC/LTC core concept. The MAP conditionally supported this measure pending NQF-endorsement and resolution of concerns about the use of two different functional status scales for quality reporting and payment purposes. Finally, the MAP reiterated its support for adding measures addressing function, noting the group's special interest in this PAC/LTC core concept. More information about the MAP's recommendations for this measure is available in the report entitled MAP Off-Cycle Deliberations 2015: Measures under Considerations to Implement Provisions of the IMPACT Act, is available at
The proposed measure is derived from the Percent of Long-Term Care Hospital Patients With an Admission and Discharge Functional Assessment and a Care Plan that Addresses Function quality measure, and we submitted the proposed measure to NQF for endorsement. The specifications are available for review at the SNF QRP measures and technical Web site at
We reviewed the NQF's endorsed measures and were unable to identify any NQF-endorsed cross-setting quality measures focused on assessment of function for PAC patients and residents. We are also unaware of any other cross-setting quality measures for functional assessment that have been endorsed or adopted by another consensus organization. Therefore, we proposed to adopt this function measure for use in the SNF QRP for the FY 2018 payment determination and subsequent years under the Secretary's authority under section 1899B(e)(2)(B) of the Act to select non-NQF-endorsed measures as long as due consideration is given to measures that have been endorsed or adopted by a consensus organization.
We proposed that data for the proposed quality measure would be collected through the MDS 3.0, which SNFs currently submit through the QIES ASAP system. We refer readers to section V.C.7 of this final rule for more information on the proposed data collection and submission timeline for this proposed quality measure. The calculation algorithm of the proposed measure is described in the FY 2016 SNF PPS proposed rule (80 FR 22075).
For purposes of assessment data collection, we proposed to add new functional status items to the MDS 3.0. The items would assess specific self-care and mobility activities, and would be based on functional items included in the Post-Acute Care Payment Reform Demonstration version of the CARE Item Set. The items have been developed and tested for reliability and validity in SNFs, HHAs, IRFs, and LTCHs. More information pertaining to item testing is available on our Post-Acute Care Quality Initiatives Web page at
The proposed function items that we will add to the MDS for purposes of the calculation of this proposed quality measure do not duplicate existing items currently collected in that assessment instrument for other purposes. The currently used MDS function items evaluate a resident's most dependent episode that occurs three or more times, whereas the proposed functional items would evaluate an individual's usual performance at the time of admission and at the time of discharge. Additionally, there are several key differences between the existing and new proposed function items that may result in variation in the resident assessment results including: (1) The data collection and associated data collection instructions; (2) the rating scales used to score a resident's level of independence; and (3) the item definitions. A description of these differences is provided with the measure specifications on our SNF QRP measures and technical Web site at
Because of the differences between the current function assessment items (Section G of the MDS 3.0) and the proposed function assessment items that we would collect for purposes of calculating the proposed measure, we would require that SNFs submit data on both sets of items. Data collection for the new proposed function items do not substitute for the data collection under the current Section G.
We invited public comments on our proposal to adopt beginning with the FY 2018 SNF QRP an application of the quality measure Percent of Long-Term Care Hospital Patients with an Admission and Discharge Functional Assessment and a care Plan that Addresses Function (NQF #2631; endorsed on July 23, 2015). The following is a summary of the comments received and our responses.
We believe that standardization of assessment items across the spectrum of post-acute care is an important goal. In this cross-setting process quality measure, there is a common core subset of function items that will allow tracking of residents' functional status across settings. We recognize that there are some differences in residents' clinical characteristics, including medical acuity, across the LTCH, SNF and IRF settings, and that certain functional items may be more relevant for certain patients/residents. Decisions regarding item selection for each quality measure were based on our review of the literature, input from a TEP convened by our measure contractor, our experiences and review of data in each setting from the PAC PRD, and public comments.
The words “Long-Term Care Hospital Patients” are included in the title of the quality measure because it is an application to the SNF setting of the existing quality measure, Percent of Long-Term Care Hospital Patients with an Admission and Discharge Functional Assessment and a Care Plan that Addresses Function (NQF 2631; endorsed on July 23, 2015), which is a Long-Term Care Hospital quality measure.
We believe that the proposed function measure meets the requirements of the IMPACT Act. The statute requires, among other things, the submission of data on the quality measures specified in at least the domains identified in the Act, but does not require a particular type of measure (for example, outcome or process) for each measure domain. Further, as discussed in this section, the measure has attributes within the assessment and data collection that enables outcomes-based evaluation by the provider.
We also disagree with the comment that we failed to provide the specifications to the proposed measure. The proposed function process quality measure is
As discussed in the proposed rule under section V.C.5.c., prior to our consideration to propose this measure's use in the SNF QRP, we reviewed the NQF's endorsed measures and were unable to identify any NQF-endorsed, cross-setting or standardized quality measures focused on assessment of function for PAC patients/residents. We were also unaware of any other cross setting quality measures for functional assessment that have been endorsed or adopted by another consensus organization. Therefore, we proposed a modified version of the quality measure, the Percent of LTCH Patients with an Admission and Discharge Functional Assessment and a Care Plan that Addresses Function (NQF #2631; endorsed on July 23, 2015), with such modifications to allow for its cross-setting application in the SNF QRP for the FY 2018 payment determination and subsequent years under the Secretary's authority to select a non-NQF-endorsed measure. Since the cross-setting measure is not identical to the measure recommended for NQF-endorsement, it is considered an application of the measure.
One commenter asked for clarification about the rationale for the short assessment period for section GG. In addition, a commenter noted that the coding of section GG, with the current look-back, will make coding of section G more complex and asked that a streamlined coding construct that is less complex be adopted. One commenter suggested that CMS develop a crosswalk to adapt the current items to create the standardization. One commenter suggested that CMS revise the MDS items to reduce burden and confusion from the duplication of data, variation in item definitions, and the variation in the rating scales. One commenter encouraged CMS to remove items from the existing data sets where possible. One commenter encouraged CMS to keep the transition period, during which both section G and section GG would be collected, short, which would allow for better cross-setting comparisons and better quality measures, and which is more in line with the intent of the IMPACT Act. Another commenter cautioned CMS about removing MDS items that are used for payment, particularly as section G has become a “payment tool for Medicaid.” Finally, a commenter suggested that CMS reach out to vendors to assure validity, timeliness, and accuracy when MDS changes occur.
In addition to the manual and training sessions, we will provide training materials through the CMS webinars, open door forums, and help desk support. We welcome ongoing input from stakeholders on key implementation and training considerations, which can be submitted via email:
We believe that the 6-level scale and additional items in section GG will allow us to better distinguish change at the highest and lowest levels of functioning by documenting minimal change from no change at the low end of the scale.
To reduce the potential burden associated with collecting additional items, we have included several mechanisms in the section GG to reduce the number of items that apply to any one resident. First, in section GG, there are gateway questions pertaining to walking and wheelchair mobility that allow the clinician to skip items that ask if the resident does not walk or does not use a wheelchair, respectively. For example, in section GG, there is an item that asks whether or not the resident walks. If the resident does not walk, three items in section GG related to walking ability are skipped. Second, section GG items will only be collected at admission and discharge. The gateway questions and skip patterns mean that only a subset of section GG items are needed for most residents. However, by including all of them in the form, the standardized versions are available when appropriate for an individual resident. With regard to the assessment time frames, for the MDS items located in section G, the assessment time frames take into consideration all episodes of the activity that occur over a 24-hour period during each day of the 7-day assessment period, as a resident's ADL self-performance and the support required may vary from day to day, shift to shift, or within shifts. As stated in the CMS MDS 3.0 Resident Assessment Instrument manual, “the responsibility of the person completing the assessment, therefore, is to capture the total picture of the resident's ADL self-performance over the 7-day period, 24 hours a day (that is, not only how the evaluating clinician sees the resident, but how the resident performs on other shifts as well)” (CMS, 2014, ch. 3, p.G-4). The CARE function items in the proposed functional quality measures, to be nested in the proposed Section GG, have a shorter assessment time frame (3 calendar days), which is standardized across the PAC settings, based on the need for data reflecting the resident's status at the time of admission and discharge. For admission, the CARE function items are to reflect the status of the person as the person is admitted to the SNF; in other words, self-care and mobility limitations present at the time of admission. We recognize that when residents are first admitted to a SNF, clinicians often determine the resident's clinical status based on several observations and often after a period of time in which the resident adjusts to the new environment. We also recognize that several clinicians from different disciplines are observing the resident's status and this may not occur on the day of admission. Further, we are aware that residents who receive rehabilitation services may have improvement in function soon after admission to the SNF as therapy services may be provided on the day of admission or the next day. If the admission assessment is not completed early in the stay, the admission score may reflect improvement already achieved by the resident due to treatment provided. In other words, functional improvement would not be reflected in function scores if the admission assessment is conducted after therapy has started and impacted the resident's status or before therapy ends. Therefore, clinicians report resident's admission functional assessment for the CARE items based on 3 calendar days. This assessment time frame has been used in IRFs successfully and balances the need for data reflecting the resident's status at the time of admission and the interest in documenting changes in function between admission and discharge.
Finally, we thank the commenters for their comments pertaining to electronic medical records (EMRs). While we applaud the use of EMRs, CMS does not require that providers use EMRs to populate assessment data. It should be noted that with each assessment release, we provide free software to our providers that allows for the completion and submission of any required assessment data. The use of a vendor to design software that extracts data from a provider's EMR to populate CMS quality assessments, is a business decision that is made solely by the provider. We only require that assessment data be submitted via the QIES ASAP system in a specific compatible format. Providers can choose to use our free software, or the data submission specifications we provide that allow providers and their vendors to develop their own software, while ensuring compatibility with the QIES ASAP system.
With regard to the assessment time frame for the CARE function items, we instructed clinicians to use a 2-day time frame if the patients/residents were admitted before 12 p.m. (noon) or 3 calendar days if the patients/residents were admitted after 12 p.m. Our exit interviews revealed that most patients/residents were admitted to the SNF after 12 p.m. and that clinicians used 3 calendar days. Therefore, we have used the assessment time frame that most clinicians used during the PAC-PRD.
Therefore, given the overall findings of these reliability analyses, we believe that the proposed function measure is sufficiently reliable for the SNF QRP.
Response: Several studies have documented patient/resident transition patterns following discharge from the hospital and continuing for 30, 60, or 90 days.
We invited comments on the measure domains and associated measures and measure concepts listed in Table 10. In addition, consistent with the requirements of the IMPACT Act to develop quality measures and standardize data for comparative purposes, we believe that evaluating outcomes across the post-acute care settings using standardized data is an important priority. Therefore, in addition to adopting a process-based measure for the IMPACT Act domain of “Functional status, cognitive function, and changes in function and cognitive function”, which is included in this year's final rule, we also intend to develop outcomes-based quality
When developing the Discharge to Community measure, the commenter recommends that CMS consider differences across PAC providers, and the implications of those differences on measure specification. An additional commenter also supported the Discharge to Community measure, which is under consideration for future years.
The commenter also recommended that when developing a resource measure, CMS should collect information from NQF on prior work done to address challenges related to developing a reliable and valid resource measure that measures total Medicare spending per beneficiary. Finally, the commenter stated that CMS needs to begin working on a medication reconciliation measure as listed in the IMPACT Act.
Beginning with the submission of data required for the FY 2018 payment determination, we proposed that a new SNF would be required to begin reporting data on any quality measures finalized for that program year by no later than the first day of the calendar quarter subsequent to 30 days after the date on its CMS Certification Number (CCN) notification letter. For example, for FY 2018 payment determinations, if a SNF received its CCN on August 28, 2016, and 30 days are added (for example, August 28 + 30 days = September 27), the SNF would be required to submit data for residents who are admitted beginning on October 1, 2016.
We invited public comments on this proposed timing for new SNFs to begin reporting quality data under the SNF QRP. However we received no comments on this proposal.
As discussed previously, we proposed that SNFs would submit data on the proposed functional status, skin integrity, and incidence of major falls measures by completing items on the MDS and then submitting the MDS to CMS through the Quality Improvement and Evaluation System (QIES), Assessment Submission and Processing System (ASAP) system. We sought comment on the proposed method of data collection.
We received no comments on the use of the MDS as the proposed method for data collection and the QIES ASAP system for data submission. Therefore, we are finalizing this approach as proposed.
Currently, there is no discharge assessment required when a resident is discharged from the SNF Medicare Part A covered stay but does not leave the facility, and we are aware that this affects nearly 30 percent of all SNF residents. To collect the data at the time these beneficiaries are discharged from the SNF Part A covered stay, we proposed to add an item set in addition to the 5-Day PPS Assessment. Further, to collect the data elements required to calculate the function quality measure (an application of Percent of Long-Term Care Hospital Patients With an Admission and Discharge Functional Assessment and a Care Plan that Addresses Function [NQF #2631; endorsed on July 23, 2015]) at the time of a residents admission, we also proposed to add the necessary items to the 5-day PPS Assessment.
A list of the data items that we are proposed to add to the SNF PPS Part A Discharge and the 5-Day PPS Assessments is available on our Web site at
We invited public comments on our proposed SNF QRP Data Collection Requirements for the FY 2018 Payment Determination and Subsequent Years.
In addition, one commenter suggests that residents of a sub-acute SNF unit are at elevated risk for medical complications due to their chronic, long-term, acute illnesses, when compared to residents of other SNF units. Due to the differences between residents of sub-acute SNF units and “regular” SNFs, the commenter requests that an additional field be added to the MDS to identify sub-acute SNF residents.
With regard to the commenter's concerns surrounding training and software/hardware costs, we recognize that with item set changes, there are necessary training and software updates that may be needed. Although the burden estimate would not be a reflection of individual provider training needs, or those related to software and hardware, we do include in the cost estimates cost pertaining to overhead. That said, CMS provides free of charge the submission specifications,
We believe that we have accounted for the costs of reporting data in our burden estimates, as they are doubled to provide for overhead and fringe benefits, which should include costs associated with any required staff training related to the collection of new items. However, additionally, we do not include in our burden estimates the time that it takes providers to enter the data into their systems, as this is a part of routine clinical care and medical charting, and the data we require providers to report is routine in this respect as well.
Having carefully considered the comments we received on our proposal pertaining to the Data Collection Requirements for the FY 2018 Payment Determination and Subsequent Years, we are finalizing the policy as proposed.
For the FY 2018 payment determination, we proposed that SNFs submit data on the three proposed quality measures for residents who are admitted to the SNF on and after October 1, 2016, and discharged from the SNF up to and including December 31, 2016, using the data submission schedule that we proposed in this section.
We proposed to collect a single quarter of data for FY 2018 to remain consistent with the usual October release schedule for the MDS, to give SNFs a sufficient amount of time to update their systems so that they can comply with the new data reporting requirements, and to give CMS a sufficient amount of time to determine compliance for the FY 2018 program. The proposed use of one quarter of data for the initial year of quality reporting is consistent with the approach we used to implement a number of other QRPs, including the LTCH, IRF, and Hospice QRPs.
We also proposed that following the close of the reporting quarter, October 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, for the FY 2018 payment determination, SNFs would have an additional 5
We invited public comment on Proposed Measures, Data Collection Source, Data Collection Period and Data Submission Deadlines Affecting the FY 2018 Payment Determination. The comments we received on this topic, with their responses, appear below.
We proposed that, beginning with the FY 2018 payment determination, SNFs must report all of the data necessary to calculate the proposed quality measures on at least 80 percent of the MDS assessments that they submit. We proposed that a SNF has reported all of the data necessary to calculate the measures if the data actually can be used for purposes of calculating the quality measures, as opposed to, for example, the use of a dash [-], to indicate that the SNF was unable to perform a pressure ulcer assessment.
We believe that because SNFs have long been required to submit MDS assessments for other purposes, SNFs should easily be able to meet this proposed requirement for the SNF QRP. Our proposal to set reporting thresholds is consistent with policies we have adopted for the Long-Term Care Hospital (79 FR 50314), Inpatient-Rehabilitation Hospital (79 FR 45923) and Home Health (79 FR 66079) QRPs.
Although we proposed to adopt an 80 percent threshold initially, we stated our intention to propose to raise the threshold level for subsequent program years through future rulemaking.
We also proposed that for the FY 2018 SNF QRP, any SNF that does not meet the proposed requirement that 80 percent of all MDS assessments submitted contain 100 percent of all data items necessary to calculate the SNF QRP measures would be subject to a reduction of 2 percentage points to its FY 2018 market basket percentage.
We invited comment on the proposed SNF QRP data completion requirements. The comments we received on this topic, with their responses, appear below.
After consideration of the public comments received, we are finalizing the adoption of the policy for SNF QRP Data Completion Thresholds for the FY 2018 Payment Determination and Subsequent Years as proposed.
To ensure the reliability and accuracy of the data submitted under the SNF QRP, we proposed to adopt policies and processes for validating the data submitted under the SNF QRP in future rulemaking. We received the following comments on elements we should consider including in such a process:
We thank the commenters for their input on policies that we should consider pertaining to data validation and accuracy analysis.
Our experience with other QRPs has shown that there are times when providers are unable to submit quality data due to extraordinary circumstances beyond their control (for example, natural, or man-made disasters). Other extenuating circumstances are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. We have defined a “disaster” as any natural or man-made catastrophe which causes damages of sufficient severity and magnitude to partially or completely destroy or delay access to medical records and associated documentation. Natural disasters could include events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, fires, mudslides, snowstorms, and tsunamis. Man-made disasters could include such events as terrorist attacks, bombings, floods caused by man-made actions, civil disorders, and explosions. A disaster may be widespread and impact multiple structures or be isolated and impact a single site only.
In certain instances of either natural or man-made disasters, a SNF may have the ability to conduct a full resident assessment, and record and save the associated data either during or before the occurrence of the extraordinary event. In this case, the extraordinary event has not caused the facility's data files to be destroyed, but it could hinder the SNF's ability to meet the QRP's data submission deadlines. In this scenario, the SNF would potentially have the ability to report the data at a later date, after the emergency has passed. In such cases, a temporary extension of the deadlines for reporting might be appropriate.
In other circumstances of natural or man-made disaster, a SNF may not have had the ability to conduct a full resident assessment, or to record and save the associated data before the occurrence of the extraordinary event. In such a scenario, the facility may not have complete data to submit to CMS. We believe that it may be appropriate, in these situations, to grant a full exception to the reporting requirements for a specific period of time.
We do not wish to penalize SNFs in these circumstances or to unduly increase their burden during these times. Therefore, we proposed a process for SNFs to request and for us to grant exceptions and extensions with respect to the quality data reporting requirements of the SNF QRP for one or more quarters, beginning with the FY 2018 payment determination, when there are certain extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the SNF. When an exception or extension is granted, we would not reduce the SNF's PPS payment for failure to comply with the requirements of the SNF QRP.
We proposed that if a SNF seeks to request an exception or extension for the SNF QRP, the SNF should request an exception or extension within 90 days of the date that the extraordinary circumstances occurred. The SNF may request an exception or extension for one or more quarters by submitting a written request to CMS that contains the information noted below, via email to the SNF Exception and Extension mailbox at
We note that the subject of the email must read “SNF QRP Exception or Extension Request” and the email must contain the following information:
• SNF CCN;
• SNF name;
• CEO or CEO-designated personnel contact information including name, telephone number, email address, and mailing address (the address must be a physical address, not a post office box);
• SNF's reason for requesting an exception or extension;
• Evidence of the impact of extraordinary circumstances, including but not limited to photographs, newspaper and other media articles; and
• A date when the SNF believes it will be able to again submit SNF QRP data and a justification for the proposed date.
We proposed that exception and extension requests be signed by the SNF's CEO or CEO-designated personnel, and that if the CEO designates an individual to sign the request, the CEO-designated individual has the appropriate authority to submit such a request on behalf of the SNF. Following receipt of the email, we will: (1) Provide a written acknowledgement, using the contact information provided in the email, to the CEO or CEO-designated contact notifying them that the request has been received; and (2) provide a formal response to the CEO or any CEO-designated SNF personnel, using the contact information provided in the email, indicating our decision.
This proposal does not preclude us from granting exceptions or extensions to SNFs that have not requested them when we determine that an extraordinary circumstance, such as an act of nature, affects an entire region or locale. If we make the determination to grant an exception or extension to all SNFs in a region or locale, we proposed to communicate this decision through routine communication channels to SNF s and vendors, including, but not limited to, issuing memos, emails, and notices on our SNF QRP Web site once it is available at
We also proposed that we may grant an exception or extension to SNFs if we determine that a systemic problem with one of our data collection systems directly affected the ability of the SNF to submit data. Because we do not anticipate that these types of systemic errors will happen often, we do not anticipate granting an exception or extension on this basis frequently.
If a SNF is granted an exception, we will not require that the SNF submit any measure data for the period of time specified in the exception request decision. If we grant an extension to a SNF, the SNF will still remain responsible for submitting quality data collected during the timeframe in question, although we will specify a revised deadline by which the SNF must submit this quality data.
We also proposed that any exception or extension requests submitted for purposes of the SNF QRP will apply to that program only, and not to any other program we administer for SNFs such as survey and certification. MDS requirements, including electronic submission, during Declared Public Health Emergencies can be found at FAQs K-5, K-6, and K-9 on the following link:
We intend to provide additional information pertaining to exceptions and extensions for the SNF QRP, including any additional guidance, on the SNFQRP Web site at
After consideration of the public comments received, we are finalizing the adoption of the policy for SNF QRP Submission Exception and Extension Requirements for the FY 2018 Payment Determination and Subsequent Years.
At the conclusion of the required quality data reporting and submission period, we will review the data received from each SNF during that reporting period to determine if the SNF met the quality data reporting requirements. SNFs that are found to be noncompliant with the reporting requirements for the applicable FY will receive a 2 percentage point reduction to their market basket percentage update for that FY.
We are aware that some of our other QRPs, such as the HIQR Program, the LTCHQR Program, and the IRF QRP include an opportunity for the providers to request a reconsideration of our initial non-compliance determination. Therefore, to be consistent with other established QRPs and to provide an opportunity for SNFs to seek reconsideration of our initial non-compliance decision, we proposed a process that will enable a SNF to request reconsideration of our initial non-compliance decision in the event that it believes that it was incorrectly identified as being non-compliant with the SNF QRP reporting requirements for a particular FY.
For the FY 2018 payment determination, and that of subsequent years, we proposed that a SNF would receive a notification of noncompliance if we determine that the SNF did not submit data in accordance with the data reporting requirements with respect to the applicable FY. The purpose of this notification is to put the SNF on notice of the following: (1) That the SNF has been identified as being non-compliant with the SNF QRP's reporting requirements for the applicable FY; (2) that the SNF will be scheduled to receive a reduction in the amount of two percentage points to its market basket percentage update for the applicable FY; (3) that the SNF may file a request for reconsideration if it believes that the finding of noncompliance is erroneous, has submitted a request for an extension or exception that has not yet been decided, or has been granted an extension or exception; and (4) that the SNF must follow a defined process on how to file a request for reconsideration, which will be described in the notification. We would only consider requests for reconsideration after an SNF has been found to be noncompliant.
Notifications of noncompliance and any subsequent notifications from CMS would be sent via a traceable delivery method, such as certified U.S. mail or registered U.S. mail, or through other practicable notification processes, such as a report from CMS to the provider as a Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reports (CASPER) report, that will provide information pertaining to their compliance with the reporting requirements for the given reporting cycle. To obtain the CASPER report, providers should access the CASPER Reporting Application. Information on how to access the CASPER Reporting Application is available on the Quality Improvement Evaluation System (QIES) Technical Support Office Web site (direct link),
We invited comments on the most preferable delivery method for the notice of non-compliance, such as U.S. Mail, email, CASPER, etc. The comments we received on this topic, with their responses, appear below.
We proposed to disseminate communications regarding the availability of compliance reports in the CASPER reports through routine channels to SNFs and vendors, including, but not limited to issuing memos, emails, Medicare Learning Network (MLN) announcements, and notices on our SNF QRP Web site once it is available at
A SNF would have 30 days from the date of the initial notification of noncompliance to submit to us a request for reconsideration. This proposed time frame allows us to balance our desire to ensure that SNFs have the opportunity to request reconsideration with our need to complete the process and provide SNFs with our reconsideration decision in a timely manner. We proposed that a SNF may withdraw its request at any time and may file an updated request within the proposed 30-day deadline. We also proposed that, in very limited circumstances, we may grant a request by a SNF to extend the proposed deadline for reconsideration requests. It would be the responsibility of a SNF to request an extension and demonstrate that extenuating circumstances existed that prevented the filing of the reconsideration request by the proposed deadline.
We also proposed that as part of the SNF's request for reconsideration, the SNF would be required to submit all supporting documentation and evidence demonstrating full compliance with all SNF QRP reporting requirements for the applicable FY, that the SNF has requested an extension or exception for which a decision has not yet been made, that the SNF has been granted an extension or exception, or has experienced an extenuating circumstance as defined in section III.D.3.j. of this rule but failed to file a timely request of exception. We proposed that we would not review any reconsideration request that fails to provide the necessary documentation and evidence along with the request.
The documentation and evidence may include copies of any communications that demonstrate the SNF's compliance with the SNF QRP, as well as any other records that support the SNF's rationale for seeking reconsideration, but should not include any protected health information (PHI). We intended to provide a sample list of acceptable supporting documentation and evidence, as well as instructions for SNFs on how to retrieve copies of the data submitted to CMS for the appropriate program year in the future on our SNF QRP Web site at
We proposed that a SNF wishing to request a reconsideration of our initial
All emails must contain a subject line that reads “SNF QRP Reconsideration Request.” Electronic email submission is the only form of reconsideration request submission that will be accepted by us. Any reconsideration requests communicated through another channel including, but not limited to, U.S. Postal Service or phone, will not be considered as a valid reconsideration request.
We proposed that a reconsideration request include the following information:
• SNF CMS Certification Number (CCN);
• SNF Business Name;
• SNF Business Address;
• The CEO contact information including name, email address, telephone number and physical mailing address; or
The CEO-designated representative contact information including name, title, email address, telephone number and physical mailing address; and
• CMS identified reason(s) for non-compliance from the non-compliance notification; and
• The reason(s) for requesting reconsideration
The request for reconsideration must be accompanied by supporting documentation demonstrating compliance.
Following receipt of a request for reconsideration, we will provide an email acknowledgment, using the contact information provided in the reconsideration request, to the CEO or CEO-designated representative that the request has been received. Once we have reached a decision regarding the reconsideration request, an email will be sent to the SNF CEO or CEO-designated representative, using the contact information provided in the reconsideration request, notifying the SNF of our decision.
We also proposed that the notifications of our decision regarding reconsideration requests may be made available through the use of CASPER reports or through a traceable delivery method, such as certified U.S. mail or registered U.S. mail. If the SNF is dissatisfied with the decision rendered at the reconsideration level, the SNF may appeal the decision to the PRRB under 42 CFR 405.1835. We believe this proposed process is more efficient and less costly for CMS and for SNFs because it decreases the number of PRRB appeals by resolving issues earlier in the process. Additional information about the reconsideration process including details for submitting a reconsideration request will be posted in the future to our SNF QRP Web site at
Section 1899B(g)(1) of the Act requires the Secretary to provide for the public reporting of SNF provider performance on the quality measures specified under subsection (c)(1) and the resource use and other measures specified under subsection (d)(1) by establishing procedures for making available to the public data and information on the performance of individual SNFs with respect to the measures. Under section 1899B(g)(2) of the Act, such procedures must be consistent with those under section 1886(b)(3)(B)(viii)(VII) of the Act and also allow SNFs the opportunity to review and submit corrections to the data and other information before it is made public. Section 1899B(g)(3) of the Act requires that the data and information be made publicly available not later than 2 years after the specified application date applicable to such a measure and provider. Finally, section 1899B(g)(4)(B) of the Act requires such procedures be consistent with sections 1819(i) and 1919(i) of the Act. We stated our intention to propose details related to the public display of quality measures in the future. The following is a summary of the comments received and our responses.
Section 1899B(f) of the Act requires the Secretary to provide confidential feedback reports to post-acute care providers on their performance with respect to the measures specified under subsections (c)(1) and (d)(1), beginning 1 year after the specified application date that applies to such measures and PAC providers. We intended to provide detailed procedures to SNFs on how to obtain their confidential feedback reports on the SNF QRP Web site at
Section 1819(d)(1)(A) of the Act for SNFs and section 1919(d)(1)(A) of the Act for NFs each state that, in general, a facility must be administered in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. Sections 1819(d)(4)(B) and 1919(d)(4)(B) of the Act give the Secretary authority to issue rules, for SNFs and NFs respectively, relating to the health, safety and well-being of residents and relating to the physical facilities thereof.
The Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-148, March 23, 2010) added a new section 1128I to the Act to promote greater accountability for LTC facilities (defined under section 1128I(a) of the Act as SNFs and nursing facilities). As added by the Affordable Care Act, section 1128I(g) pertains to the submission of staffing data by LTC facilities, and specifies that the Secretary, after consulting with state long-term care ombudsman programs, consumer advocacy groups, provider stakeholder groups, employees and their representatives and other parties the Secretary deems appropriate, shall require a facility to electronically submit to the Secretary direct care staffing information, including information for agency and contract staff, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data in a uniform format according to specifications established by the Secretary in consultation with such programs, groups, and parties. The statute further requires that the specifications established by the Secretary specify the category of work a certified employee performs (such as whether the employee is a registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, licensed vocational nurse, certified nursing assistant, therapist, or other medical personnel), include resident census data and information on resident case mix, be reported on a regular schedule, and include information on employee turnover and tenure and on the hours of care provided by each category of certified employees per resident per day. Section 1128I(g) of the Act establishes that the Secretary may require submission of information for specific categories, such as nursing staff, before other categories of certified employees, and requires that information for agency and contract staff be kept separate from information on employee staffing.
As part of the FY 2016 SNF PPS proposed rule, we proposed to implement the new statutory requirement in section 1128I(g) of the Act. Specifically, we proposed to modify current regulations applicable to LTC facilities that participate in Medicare and Medicaid by amending the requirements for the administration of a LTC facility at § 483.75 to add a new paragraph (u), Mandatory submission of staffing information based on payroll data in a uniform format.
During the 60-day comment period on the proposed rule, we received approximately 22 timely comments on the staffing data collection proposal from individuals, providers, national and regional health care professional associations and advocacy groups. Summaries of the proposed provisions, as well as the public comments and our responses, are set forth below.
As discussed in the FY 2016 SNF PPS proposed rule, we adopted a multi-pronged strategy to comply with section 1128I(g) of the Act's consultation requirement that includes both soliciting input from all interested parties through the rulemaking process and ongoing consultation with the statutorily identified entities regarding the sub-regulatory reporting specifications that we will establish. We invited public comment on our proposed methods for consultation on the submission specifications. The comments we received on this topic, with their responses, appear below.
As noted above, section 1128(g) of the Act mandates that the Secretary require LTC facilities “to “to electronically submit to the Secretary direct care staffing information, including information for agency and contract staff, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data in a uniform format.” The proposed rule
Several commenters expressed concern that the Draft PBJ Policy Manual suggested CMS planned to interpret the proposed regulation to require reporting of information on non-direct care employees and opined that this interpretation would go beyond what Congress intended. One commenter stated that nowhere in the Affordable Care Act, or the proposed rule, is there mention of the non-direct patient care services as direct care staff. They opined that some of the employee categories listed in the Draft PBJ Policy Manual, such as housekeeping and dietary, are generally not considered to be individuals that perform direct care. Commenters stated that it was not the intent of Congress to require reporting for individuals providing non-direct care services and that CMS's interpretation would increase the burden beyond what is necessary, while at the same time not adding information that is helpful to the overall goal of the program. They stated that the interpretation by CMS of definitions of direct care staff in the Draft PBJ Policy Manual broadens the scope and breadth of data required, and does so to an unnecessary extent that exhibits overreach of the legislative directive. They urged CMS to maintain internal consistency with the definitions in section 6106 of the Affordable Care Act, the proposed rule, the Draft PBJ Policy Manual and ultimately the final rule, and limit this data collection to direct patient care staff information. Commenters stated that the final rule should clarify that direct care staffing excludes non-direct care services. In addition, they recommended that references to non-direct care services be removed from the Draft PBJ Policy Manual to avoid confusion and unnecessary administrative costs for providers. Some examples the commenters provided as extraneous to the direct care staff normally employed by nursing homes (and that they advise should be reevaluated with stakeholder consultation and input) are blood service workers and vocational service workers.
Another commenter urged that CMS only collect staffing data about direct care staff that are typically employed (or contracted by) in nursing centers, including trained medication aides (where permitted by state law), and not all types of staff that are currently reflected in the CMS Form 671 (for example, housekeeping staff, administration and storage of blood, vocational services). They also recommended that CMS collect staffing data about additional direct care staff such as Certified Respiratory Therapists, all therapy staff (Speech and Language Pathologists, Physical Therapists, Occupational Therapists, PT/OT Assistants and Aides) therapeutic recreation staff, medical social workers, physicians and non-physician practitioners (NPPs). Another commenter asked that CMS clearly delineate all staff categories, including physical therapist and physical therapist assistants. Additional comments request that CMS clarify what categories of employees are included in “therapist and other type of medical personnel”.
Although comments on the Draft PBJ Policy Manual are beyond the scope of this rulemaking, we appreciate commenters' feedback on how this draft guidance would implement the regulatory obligations established under this rule. We agree with commenters who stated that the reporting obligation under this regulation should not extend
We proposed language for the new § 483.75(u)(1)(iii) that would require facilities to submit information on staff turnover and tenure and on the hours of care provided by each category of staff per resident per day (including, but limited to start date, end date (as applicable) and hours worked for each individual.
We noted that section 1128I(g)(4) of the Act requires LTC facilities to report on the hours of care provided by each category of certified employees per resident per day. We expressed our belief that the obligation to submit information on “hours of care” is satisfied by requiring facilities to submit hours worked by staff. In addition, we noted that although section 1128I(g)(2) of the Act requires the submission of resident case mix information, the proposed rule did not include a provision to implement this requirement because existing regulations at § 483.20 require LTC facilities to meet this statutory requirement through the required submission of the Minimum Data Set (MDS). Details of the comments we received on submission requirements, with our responses, appear below.
Other commenters supported the reporting of hours worked, but stated that submission specifications should account for actual hours worked by salaried/exempt staff. They observed that exempt direct care employees can frequently work more than the salaried time period (for example, 40-hour basis) for which they are paid. While alternate compensation for any additional hours will not be evident in a payroll-based system, they suggested that the CMS staffing data collection process should account for this additional time to accurately reflect direct care staffing and coverage. Similarly, another commenter observed that there are data elements that are not captured in payroll data alone, such as time worked off of the clock for contract employees, or the actual hours worked by the salaried employee. The commenter stated that capturing data that includes productivity standards and time allocated for indirect patient care would further illuminate quality patient care that is not intuitive to payroll data alone. The commenter suggested that this can be calculated by collecting data for direct patient contact time, which is captured in the MDS and/or medical record. The commenter recommended the inclusion of direct patient contact time, as reported by speech language pathologists or derived from the billable minutes provided on the date of service.
We appreciate commenters' observation that payroll systems record vacation, sick time, and certain other absences that are time other than “hours worked.” Therefore, when LTC facilities report total hours worked by direct care staff (based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data as
At the same time, we recognize that nursing home staff engage in other non-care and direct care activities throughout their day, such as breaks. Although outside the scope of this rulemaking, we appreciate that in calculating quality measures we may need to adopt some statistical refinements that allow for reasonable estimates of such time in order to afford the public the information that will enable recognition of the time that staff are engaged in non-care or non-direct care activities. Also, as required in the statute, we require that the primary care area of each staff person (as well as each individual's hours) be reported. Such categorization will allow the public to identify which care areas are most important to them, as well as to focus on the types of staff who provide most of the hands-on care. We thank the commenters for identifying these issues, and will take this feedback into account when assessing future uses of the data, such as quality measures.
We further note that the regulation does not limit collection of information to payroll data exclusively. In fact, the regulation specifies that the information will be “based on payroll
Under section 1128I(g) of the Act's requirement that information for agency and contract staff be kept separate from information on employee staffing, we proposed to add a new § 483.75(u)(2) to establish that, when reporting direct care staffing information for an individual, a facility must specify whether the individual is an employee of the facility or is engaged by the facility as contract or agency staff. We believe the statute's intent is to require LTC facilities to submit staffing information in a manner that can enable us to distinguish those staff that are employed by the facility from those that are engaged by the facility under a contract or through an agency. We do not believe the statute requires such data to be submitted at separate times or through separate systems, which would merely engender unnecessary costs and burden, so we intend to collect all facility staffing information at the same time and through the same system, employing a mechanism by which LTC facilities will clearly specify whether staff members are employees of the facility, or engaged under contract or through an agency.
The comments we received on this topic, with their responses, appear below.
We proposed to add a new § 483.75(u)(3) to establish that a facility must submit direct care staffing information in the format specified by CMS. This provision would implement the requirement in section 1128I(g) of the Act that facilities submit direct care staffing information in a uniform format. As noted, we are consulting with stakeholders on potential format specifications. The data that we proposed for submission are similar to those already submitted by LTC facilities to CMS on the forms CMS-671 and CMS-672 (we intended for this proposed new information collection to eventually supplant the data collections via the CMS-671 and CMS-672). In advance of the proposed July 1, 2016 implementation date, we will publicize the established format specifications and will offer training to help facilities and other interested parties (for example, payroll vendors) prepare to meet the requirement.
The comments we received on this topic, with their responses, appear below.
In the proposed rule, we indicated that the regulation would take effect on July 1, 2016. We explained that prior to this effective data, we would establish a voluntary submission period whereby facilities can submit staffing information on a voluntary basis to become familiar with the system and to provide feedback to CMS on systems issues in advance of the mandatory submission date.
Section 1128I(g)(3) of the Act requires that facilities submit direct care staffing information on a regular reporting schedule. At § 483.75(u)(4) we proposed to establish that a facility must submit direct care staffing information on the schedule specified by CMS, but no less frequently than quarterly. Comments we received on this topic and our responses appear elsewhere in this preamble.
In the proposed rule we noted that § 483.75(u) would establish that these new reporting requirements would be conditions a LTC facility must meet to qualify to participate as a SNF in the Medicare program or a NF in the Medicaid program. As such, we explained that we planned to enforce the requirements under this new regulation through 42 CFR part 488 and non-compliance with the proposed § 483.75(u), could result in CMS or the state imposing one or more remedies available to address noncompliance with the requirements for LTC facilities.
The comments we received on this topic, with our responses, appear below.
We are adopting the provisions of this final rule as proposed, with the following changes:
• In consideration of public comments, we added a definition of “direct care staff” at § 483.75(u)(1). We renumbered the subsections within § 483.75(u) accordingly. In addition, we made conforming changes to utilize the defined term in the provisions regarding the submission requirements at § 483.75(u)(2)(i) and (iii) in the final rule and the provision regarding distinguishing employee from agency and contract staff at § 483.75(u)(3) of this final rule.
• Finally, in consideration of public comment, we added the adjective “uniform” to describe the format requirement in the provision regarding data format in § 483.75(u)(4) of the final rule.
In the FY 2016 SNF PPS proposed rule (80 FR 22082), we solicited public comment on that rule's information collection requirements as they relate to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Consistent with the proposed rule, this final rule maintains that the information collection requirements are exempt from the PRA. We refer readers to the FY 2016 SNF PPS proposed rule for details.
We have examined the impacts of this final rule as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Act, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, March 22, 1995; Pub. L. 104-4), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999), and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
This final rule would update the SNF prospective payment rates for FY 2015 as required under section 1888(e)(4)(E) of the Act. It also responds to section 1888(e)(4)(H) of the Act, which requires the Secretary to provide for publication in the
This final rule sets forth updates of the SNF PPS rates contained in the SNF PPS final rule for FY 2015 (79 FR 45628). Based on the above, we estimate that the aggregate impact would be an increase of $430 million in payments to SNFs, resulting from the SNF market basket update to the payment rates, as adjusted by the applicable forecast error adjustment and by the MFP adjustment. The impact analysis of this final rule represents the projected effects of the changes in the SNF PPS from FY 2015 to FY 2016. Although the best data available are utilized, there is no attempt to predict behavioral responses to these changes, or to make adjustments for future changes in such variables as days or case-mix.
Certain events may occur to limit the scope or accuracy of our impact analysis, as this analysis is future-oriented and, thus, very susceptible to forecasting errors due to certain events that may occur within the assessed impact time period. Some examples of possible events may include newly-legislated general Medicare program funding changes by the Congress, or changes specifically related to SNFs. In addition, changes to the Medicare program may continue to be made as a result of previously-enacted legislation, or new statutory provisions. Although these changes may not be specific to the SNF PPS, the nature of the Medicare program is such that the changes may interact and, thus, the complexity of the interaction of these changes could make it difficult to predict accurately the full scope of the impact upon SNFs.
In accordance with sections 1888(e)(4)(E) and 1888(e)(5) of the Act, we update the FY 2015 payment rates by a factor equal to the market basket index percentage change adjusted by the FY 2014 forecast error and the MFP adjustment to determine the payment rates for FY 2016. As discussed previously, for FY 2012 and each subsequent FY, as required by section 1888(e)(5)(B) of the Act as amended by section 3401(b) of the Affordable Care Act, the market basket percentage is reduced by the MFP adjustment. The special AIDS add-on established by section 511 of the MMA remains in effect until such date as the Secretary certifies that there is an appropriate adjustment in the case mix. We have not provided a separate impact analysis for the MMA provision. Our latest estimates indicate that there are fewer than 4,800 beneficiaries who qualify for the add-on payment for residents with AIDS. The impact to Medicare is included in the total column of Table 12. In updating the SNF PPS rates for FY 2016, we made a number of standard annual revisions and clarifications mentioned elsewhere in this final rule (for example, the update to the wage and market basket indexes used for adjusting the federal rates).
The annual update set forth in this final rule applies to SNF PPS payments in FY 2016. Accordingly, the analysis that follows only describes the impact of this single year. In accordance with the requirements of the Act, we will publish a notice or rule for each subsequent FY that will provide for an update to the SNF PPS payment rates and include an associated impact analysis.
In accordance with sections 1888(g) and (h)(2)(A) of the Act, we are finalizing the adoption of a SNF 30-Day All-Cause Readmission Measure (SNFRM) for the SNF VBP Program. Because this measure is claims-based, its adoption under the SNF VBP Program would not result in any increased costs to SNFs.
However, we do not yet have preliminary data with which we could project economic impacts associated with the measure. We intend to make additional proposals for the SNF VBP Program in future rulemaking, and we will assess the impacts of the SNFRM and any associated SNF VBP Program proposals at that time.
The burden associated with the SNF QRP is the time and effort associated with data collection and reporting. In this final rule, we are finalizing three quality measures that meet the requirements of section 1888(e)(6)(B)(II) of the Act.
Our burden calculations take into account all “new” items required on the MDS 3.0 to support data collection and reporting for these three finalized measures. New items will be included on the following assessments: SNF PPS 5-Day, Swing Bed PPS 5-Day, OMRA—Start of Therapy Discharge, OMRA—Other Discharge, OBRA Discharge, Swing Bed OMRA—Start of Therapy Discharge, Swing Bed OMRA—Other Discharge, and Swing Bed Discharge on the MDS 3.0. The SNF QRP also requires the addition of a SNF PPS Part A Discharge Assessment, which will also include new items. New items include data elements required to identify whether pressure ulcers were present on admission, to inform future development of the Percent of Residents or Patients with Pressure Ulcers That Are New or Worsened (Short Stay) (NQF #0678), as well as changes in function and occurrence of falls with major injury. To the extent applicable, we will use standardized items to collect data for the three measures. For a copy of the data collection instrument, please visit:
We estimate a total additional burden of $30.00 per Medicare-covered SNF stay, based on the most recent data available, in this case FY 2014, that 15,421 SNFs had a total of 2,599,656 Medicare-covered stays for fee-for-service beneficiaries. This would equate
We anticipate that the additional MDS items we finalized will be completed by Registered Nurses (RN), Occupational Therapists (OT), and/or Physical Therapists (PT), depending on the item. We identified the staff type per item based on past LTCH and IRF burden calculations in conjunction with expert opinion. Our assumptions for staff type were based on the categories generally necessary to perform assessment: Registered Nurse (RN), Occupational Therapy (OT), and Physical Therapy (PT). Individual providers determine the staffing resources necessary, therefore, we averaged the national average for these labor types and established a composite cost estimate. We obtained mean hourly wages for these staff from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' May 2013 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates (
To calculate the added burden, we first identified the total number of new items to be added into assessment instruments. We assume that each new item accounts for 0.5 minutes of nursing facility staff time. This assumption is consistent with burden calculations in past IRF and LTCH federal regulations. For each staff type, we then multiply the added burden in minutes with the number of times we believe that each item will be completed annually. To identify the number of times an item would be completed annually, we noted the number of total SNF FFS Medicare-covered stays in FY 2014, the most recent data available to us. We assume that if an item were added to all discharge assessments, then that item would be completed at least one time per SNF FFS Medicare-covered stay. For example, the time it takes to complete an item added to all discharge assessments (0.5 minutes) would be multiplied by the number of SNF FFS Medicare-covered stays in FY 2014 to identify the total added burden in minutes associated with that item. Items added only to the SNF PPS Part A Discharge were weighted to reflect the proportion of SNF stays for residents who switch payers, but are not physically discharged from the facility. Added burden in minutes per staff type was then converted to hours and multiplied by the doubled hourly wage to identify the annual cost per staff type. Given these wages and time estimates, the total cost related to the SNF PPS Part A Discharge Assessment and SNF QRP measures is estimated at $5,057.45 per SNF annually, or $78,011,166.25 for all SNFs annually. We received comments regarding the burden related to the SNF QRP, which we addressed in section III.D.3.g.(2). of this final rule.
We have also conducted an impact analysis with regard to the electronic submission of staffing information, which will be required under 42 CFR 483.75(u). While facilities have been reporting their staffing data for many years via an annual, paper-based system, we appreciate that the electronic submission of staffing data is something that facilities have not been required to do and that this new requirement will have financial and/or staff time implications. Like the implementation of many new programs, the level of effort will be higher upfront, but decline throughout subsequent years.
The FY 2016 SNF PPS payment impacts appear in Table 12. Using the most recently available data, in this case FY 2014, we apply the current FY 2015 wage index and labor-related share value to the number of payment days to simulate FY 2015 payments. Then, using the same FY 2014 data, we apply the FY 2016 wage index and labor-related share value to simulate FY 2016 payments. We tabulate the resulting payments according to the classifications in Table 12 (for example, facility type, geographic region, facility ownership), and compare the simulated FY 2015 payments to the simulated FY 2016 payments to determine the overall impact. The breakdown of the various categories of data in the table follows.
The first column shows the breakdown of all SNFs by urban or rural status, hospital-based or freestanding status, census region, and ownership.
The first row of figures describes the estimated effects of the various changes on all facilities. The next six rows show the effects on facilities split by hospital-based, freestanding, urban, and rural categories. The next nineteen rows show the effects on facilities by urban versus rural status by census region. The last three rows show the effects on facilities by ownership (that is, government, profit, and non-profit status).
The second column shows the number of facilities in the impact database.
The third column shows the effect of the annual update to the wage index. This represents the effect of using the most recent wage data available. The total impact of this change is zero percent; however, there are distributional effects of the change.
The fourth column shows the effect of all of the changes on the FY 2016 payments. The update of 1.2 percent (consisting of the market basket increase of 2.3 percentage points, reduced by the 0.6 percentage point forecast error adjustment and further reduced by the 0.5 percentage point MFP adjustment) is constant for all providers and, though not shown individually, is included in the total column. It is projected that aggregate payments will increase by 1.2 percent, assuming facilities do not change their care delivery and billing practices in response.
As illustrated in Table 12, the combined effects of all of the changes vary by specific types of providers and by location. For example, due to changes finalized in this rule, providers in the rural Pacific region would experience a 1.4 percent increase in FY 2016 total payments.
We have also conducted an economic analysis with regard impact of the electronic submission of staffing information, which is required under 42 CFR 483.75(u). Factors affecting a facility's cost include the size of the facility, the number of employees of a facility, and the type of system a facility uses to report and submit data. To calculate the cost, we analyzed information from a staffing pilot conducted in 2012, including evaluating the type (for example, hours per day) and frequency (for example, quarterly) of the information to be submitted. For example, we estimate that a facility using a complex, automated payroll or time-keeping system would require some upfront and ongoing costs to configure their system to provide the data. We estimate these costs to be approximately $500 to $1,500 upfront, with an additional $500 to $1,500 in maintenance costs each year. Additionally, we estimate this type of facility would require an estimated 1 hour of in-house staff time per week, to oversee the process. Conversely, a facility without an automated time-keeping system would not have the upfront and ongoing costs associated with purchasing or configuring a system. However, this facility would require more time from in-house staff to enter and submit the data. We estimate this time to be approximately 4 hours per week. To help mitigate potential cost for facilities, we will be providing a system for facilities to enter and submit data manually and at no cost. Using the 2013 hourly wage estimate of $18.71 per hour for payroll and timekeeping employees in Skilled Nursing Facilities from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we believe that the cost to facilities will range between $4,100 and $6,800 per facility for the first year of implementation. This includes one-time costs associated with configuring payroll or time-keeping systems to produce and submit the required data. Subsequent years would have lower costs ranging from $2,700 to $4,200 per facility per year. These estimates also include up to 16 hours per year for training staff on the submission of data.
As described in this section, we estimate that the aggregate impact for FY 2016 would be an increase of $430 million in payments to SNFs, resulting from the SNF market basket update to the payment rates, as adjusted by the applicable forecast error adjustment and by the MFP adjustment.
Section 1888(e) of the Act establishes the SNF PPS for the payment of Medicare SNF services for cost reporting periods beginning on or after July 1, 1998. This section of the statute prescribes a detailed formula for calculating payment rates under the SNF PPS, and does not provide for the use of any alternative methodology. It specifies that the base year cost data to be used for computing the SNF PPS payment rates must be from FY 1995 (October 1, 1994, through September 30, 1995). In accordance with the statute, we also incorporated a number of elements into the SNF PPS (for example, case-mix classification methodology, a market basket index, a wage index, and the urban and rural distinction used in the development or adjustment of the federal rates). Further, section 1888(e)(4)(H) of the Act specifically requires us to disseminate the payment rates for each new FY through the
Section 1128I(g) of the Act establishes requirement for LTC facilities to submit direct care staffing information. This section of the statute specifically prescribes the data to be submitted. Accordingly we are not pursuing alternatives to the reporting requirement as discussed previously.
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available online at
This final rule sets forth updates of the SNF PPS rates contained in the SNF PPS final rule for FY 2015 (79 FR 45628). Based on the above, we estimate the overall estimated payments for SNFs in FY 2016 are projected to increase by $430 million, or 1.2 percent, compared with those in FY 2015. We estimate that in FY 2016 under RUG-IV, SNFs in urban and rural areas would experience, on average, a 1.3 and 0.6 percent increase, respectively, in estimated payments compared with FY 2015. Providers in the urban Pacific and Middle Atlantic regions would experience the largest estimated increase in payments of approximately 1.8 percent. Providers in the rural Middle Atlantic region would experience a small decrease in payments of 0.3 percent.
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small entities, if a rule has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, non-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Most SNFs and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by reason of their non-profit status or by having revenues of $27.5 million or less in any 1 year. We utilized the revenues of individual SNF providers (from recent Medicare Cost Reports) to classify a small business, and not the revenue of a larger firm with which they may be affiliated. As a result, we estimate approximately 91 percent of SNFs are considered small businesses according to the Small Business Administration's latest size standards (NAICS 623110), with total revenues of $27.5 million or less in any 1 year. (For details, see the Small Business Administration's Web site at
This final rule sets forth updates of the SNF PPS rates contained in the SNF PPS final rule for FY 2015 (79 FR 45628). Based on the above, we estimate that the aggregate impact would be an increase of $430 million in payments to SNFs, resulting from the SNF market basket update to the payment rates, as adjusted by the MFP adjustment and forecast error adjustment. While it is projected in Table 12 that most providers would experience a net increase in payments, we note that some individual providers within the same region or group may experience different impacts on payments than others due to the distributional impact of the FY 2016 wage indexes and the degree of Medicare utilization.
Guidance issued by the Department of Health and Human Services on the proper assessment of the impact on small entities in rulemakings, utilizes a cost or revenue impact of 3 to 5 percent as a significance threshold under the RFA. According to MedPAC, Medicare covers approximately 12 percent of total patient days in freestanding facilities and 22 percent of facility revenue (Report to the Congress: Medicare Payment Policy, March 2015, available at
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area and has fewer than 100 beds. This final rule will affect small rural hospitals that (1) furnish SNF services under a swing-bed agreement or (2) have a hospital-based SNF. We anticipate that the impact on small rural hospitals would be similar to the impact on SNF providers overall. Moreover, as noted in previous SNF PPS final rules (most recently the one for FY 2015 (79 FR 45658)), the category of small rural hospitals would be included within the analysis of the impact of this final rule on small entities in general. As indicated in Table 12, the effect on facilities is projected to be an aggregate positive impact of 1.2 percent. As the overall impact on the industry as a whole is less than the 3 to 5 percent threshold discussed above, the Secretary has determined that this final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small rural hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2015, that threshold is approximately $144 million. This final rule would not impose spending costs on state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $144 million.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it issues a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on state and local governments, preempts state law, or otherwise has federalism implications. This final rule will have no substantial direct effect on state and local governments, preempt state law, or otherwise have federalism implications.
This final regulation is subject to the Congressional Review Act provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this final rule was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Grant programs-health, Health facilities, Health professions, Health records, Medicaid, Medicare, Nursing homes, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services amends 42 CFR chapter IV as set forth below:
Secs. 1102, 1128I, 1819, 1871 and 1919 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302, 1320a-7, 1395i, 1395hh and 1396r).
(u)
(1)
(2)
(i) The category of work for each person on direct care staff (including, but not limited to, whether the individual is a registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, licensed vocational nurse, certified nursing assistant, therapist, or other type of medical personnel as specified by CMS);
(ii) Resident census data; and
(iii) Information on direct care staff turnover and tenure, and on the hours of care provided by each category of staff per resident per day (including, but not limited to, start date, end date (as applicable), and hours worked for each individual).
(3)
(4)
(5)
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget.
Notice of Solicitation of Comments on the Economic Classification Policy Committee's Recommendations for the 2017 Revision of the North American Industry Classification System.
Under the authority of the Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 1104(d)) and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3504(e)), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) seeks public comment on the advisability of adopting the proposed North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) updates for 2017 recommended by its Economic Classification Policy Committee (ECPC), comprised of representatives of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Census Bureau. The ECPC recommends an update of the industry classification system to clarify existing industry definitions and content, recognize new and emerging industries, and correct errors and omissions.
This notice: (1) Summarizes the background for the proposed revisions to NAICS 2012 in Part I, (2) contains a summary of public comments in Part II, (3) includes a list of title changes for NAICS industries that clarify, but do not change, the existing content of the industries in Part III, and (4) provides a comprehensive listing of proposed changes for national industries and their links to NAICS 2012 industries in Part IV.
OMB published a notification of intention to revise portions of NAICS in a May 22, 2014,
After considering all proposals from the public, consulting with U.S. data users and industry groups, and undertaking extensive discussions with Statistics Canada and Mexico's
The ECPC recommends that NAICS United States 2017 incorporate changes as shown in Parts III and IV of this notice.
Following an extensive process of development and discussions by the ECPC, with maximum possible public input, OMB seeks comment on the advisability of revising NAICS to incorporate the changes published in this notice. The revised NAICS would be employed in relevant data collections by all U.S. statistical agencies beginning with reference year 2017. Statistics Canada and INEGI are recommending acceptance of the proposed NAICS revisions for industry classification in the statistical programs of their national systems and are seeking comments in their respective countries. Representatives of the three countries will hold further discussions to consider public comments that they receive.
To ensure consideration of comments on the adoption and implementation of the NAICS revisions detailed in this notice, please submit all comments in writing as soon as possible, but no later than October 5, 2015. Please be aware of delays in mail processing at Federal facilities due to heightened security. Respondents are also encouraged to send both a hard copy and a second copy via FAX or email (discussed in
Please send correspondence about the adoption and implementation of proposed NAICS revisions as shown in this
All comments regarding this notice received via the Web site, email, fax, hardcopy, or other means, are part of the public record as submitted. For this reason, do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. If you send an email comment, your email address will be automatically saved and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comments that may be made available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.
Please include contact information and a phone number or email address with your comments to facilitate follow-up if necessary.
Please address inquiries about the content of industries or requests for electronic copies of the tables to: John Murphy, Chair, Economic Classification Policy Committee, Bureau of the Census, Room 8K157, Washington, DC 20233, telephone number: (301) 763-5172, email:
Paul Bugg, 10201 New Executive Office Building., Washington, DC 20503, email address:
NAICS is a system for classifying establishments (individual business locations) by type of economic activity. Its purposes are: (1) To facilitate the collection, tabulation, presentation, and analysis of data relating to
Mexico's
NAICS also reflects, in a much more explicit way, the enormous changes in technology and in the growth and diversification of services that have marked recent decades. Industry statistics presented using NAICS are also comparable, to a limited extent, with statistics compiled according to the latest revision of the United Nations' International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC, Revision 4).
For the three countries, NAICS provides a consistent framework for the collection, tabulation, presentation, and analysis of industry statistics used by government policy analysts, academics and researchers, the business community, and the public. However, because of different national economic and institutional structures as well as limited resources and time for constructing NAICS, its structure is not entirely comparable at the individual industry level across all three countries. For some sectors and subsectors, the statistical agencies of the three countries agreed to harmonize NAICS based on sectoral boundaries rather than on a detailed industry structure. NAICS comparability is limited to the sector level for wholesale trade, retail trade, and public administration.
The four principles of NAICS are:
(1) NAICS is erected on a production-oriented conceptual framework. This means that producing units that use the same or similar production processes are grouped together in NAICS.
(2) NAICS gives special attention to developing production-oriented classifications for (a) new and emerging industries, (b) service industries in general, and (c) industries engaged in the production of advanced technologies.
(3) The system aims to maintain time series continuity to the extent possible.
(4) The system strives for compatibility with the two-digit level of the United Nations' International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC, Revision 4).
The ECPC is committed to maintaining the principles of NAICS during revisions. The May 22, 2014, solicitation for public comment on questions related to a potential revision of NAICS in 2017 was directly tied to the application of these four NAICS principles.
NAICS uses a hierarchical structure to classify establishments from the broadest level to the most detailed level using the following format of up to six digits:
In response to the May 22, 2014,
For the remaining 113 comments, each submission was assigned a unique docket number. These 113 comments addressed the questions included in Parts II-V of the May 22, 2014, notice and/or included comments proposing other changes to the structure of NAICS 2012.
The ECPC applied the following general guidance when considering changes to NAICS in 2017:
(1) Because of the cost of change and the disruption of statistical data series that have already resulted from the ongoing implementation of NAICS, the ECPC will limit the scope of NAICS changes for 2017 to those that significantly improve the relevance and efficiency of the classification system;
(2) The ECPC will recommend new and emerging industries identified through the comment process that are supported by the guiding principles of NAICS;
(3) The ECPC will undertake additional research and evaluation before making its recommendation on the classification of manufacturing units that outsource transformation, as announced by OMB in a
(4) The ECPC will make changes to account for errors and omissions as well as recommend narrative improvements to clarify the content of existing industries.
The ECPC also considered the views of its member agencies (Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Census Bureau) when evaluating specific proposals for changes to NAICS in 2017. The ECPC reviewed each individual proposal within the existing framework of the principles of NAICS. Additional
Comments received often addressed more than one issue. Of the 113 uniquely numbered comments received in response to the
Each suggestion was carefully considered. Some suggestions were recommended for adoption but modified by the ECPC to better meet the objectives of NAICS. Based on public comments, the ECPC is recommending industry definition changes to explicitly classify certain activities and more clearly match accepted industry terminology.
Some suggestions were recommended to be incorporated as products rather than industries. Other suggestions for change were not best suited on the production-oriented basis of NAICS, or could not be implemented in statistical programs, for various reasons, and thus were not accepted. When a proposal was not accepted, it was usually because: (a) The resulting industry would have been too small in the U.S. or (b) the proposal did not meet the production-oriented criterion for forming an industry in NAICS. Detailed supporting documentation discussing the issues and rationale for reaching these recommendations is available at
The ECPC is recommending NAICS industry title changes to more clearly describe the existing content of industries. These title changes do not change the content of these industries, but rather refine how they are described.
NAICS Industry Group 7213, Rooming and Boarding Houses, would be changed to
NAICS 72131, Rooming and Boarding Houses, would be changed to
NAICS 721310, Rooming and Boarding Houses, would be changed to
Part IV presents the ECPC recommendations for content revisions to NAICS United States for 2017. Table 1 lists, in NAICS United States 2012 order, the disposition of all industries that the ECPC recommends for change and their resulting relationship to NAICS United States 2017 proposed industries. Table 2 presents the ECPC recommended NAICS 2017 industries in proposed NAICS United States 2017 order, cross-walked to their NAICS United States 2012 content.
| 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 |