Page Range | 47399-47828 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
80 FR 47528 - Sunshine Act Meetings; National Science Board | |
80 FR 47489 - Farm Credit Administration Board; Sunshine Act; Regular Meeting | |
80 FR 47546 - In the Matter of Solar Acquisition Corp., Order of Suspension of Trading | |
80 FR 47541 - In the Matter of PDK Energy, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading | |
80 FR 47453 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
80 FR 47561 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee | |
80 FR 47490 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
80 FR 47490 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
80 FR 47529 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
80 FR 47491 - Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Programs; Membership and Meeting Announcement for the Advisory Panel on Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests | |
80 FR 47514 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Joint Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement for the West of Devers Upgrade Project, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, CA | |
80 FR 47517 - United States and State of New York v. Twin America, LLC, et al.; Public Comment and Response on Proposed Final Judgment | |
80 FR 47504 - Texas; Amendment No. 9 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
80 FR 47503 - Texas; Amendment No. 8 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
80 FR 47557 - Regional Rail Holdings, LLC-Acquisition of Control Exemption-Regional Rail, LLC | |
80 FR 47502 - Texas; Amendment No. 10 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
80 FR 47504 - Texas; Amendment No. 11 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
80 FR 47503 - New Jersey; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
80 FR 47504 - Louisiana; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
80 FR 47493 - Request for Quality Metrics; Notice of Draft Guidance Availability and Public Meeting; Request for Comments; Correction | |
80 FR 47462 - Authorization of Production Activity; Foreign-Trade Subzone 167B; Polaris Industries, Inc. (Spark-Ignition Internal Combustion Engines); Osceola, Wisconsin | |
80 FR 47469 - Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review | |
80 FR 47463 - Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the United Arab Emirates: Negative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order | |
80 FR 47464 - Xanthan Gum From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2013-2014 | |
80 FR 47467 - Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 | |
80 FR 47467 - Chloropicrin From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order | |
80 FR 47563 - Agency Information Collection-Clarification of a Notice of Disagreement Under OMB Review | |
80 FR 47563 - Proposed Information Collection: Income, Net Worth and Employment Statement (in Support of Claim for Total Disability Benefits) and Application for Pension | |
80 FR 47554 - Notice of Intent To Release Certain Properties From all Terms, Conditions, Reservations and Restrictions of a Quitclaim Deed Agreement Between the City of Zephyrhills and the Federal Aviation Administration for the Zephyrhills Municipal Airport, Zephyrhills, FL | |
80 FR 47515 - Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Feasibility Report for the Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation, Shasta and Tehama Counties, California | |
80 FR 47493 - Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special Exposure Cohort | |
80 FR 47555 - Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming Model Year 2006 Ferrari 612 Scagletti Passenger Cars Manufactured Before September 1, 2006 Are Eligible for Importation | |
80 FR 47510 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Enhancement of Survival Permit Application; Greater Sage-Grouse Candidate Conservation Agreement With Assurances for Smith Creek Ranch LTD | |
80 FR 47482 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Assessing the Role of Noncognitive and School Environmental Factors in Students' Transitions to High School in New Mexico | |
80 FR 47494 - Notice of Service Delivery Area Designation for the Koi Nation of Northern California Formerly Known as the Lower Lake Rancheria | |
80 FR 47405 - Liberalization of Certain Documentary Evidence Required as Proof of Exportation on Drawback Claims | |
80 FR 47515 - Notice of Public Meetings: Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council, Nevada | |
80 FR 47513 - Filing of Plats of Survey: California | |
80 FR 47450 - Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties Resource Advisory Committee | |
80 FR 47451 - Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties Resource Advisory Committee | |
80 FR 47553 - Modifications to the Disability Determination Procedures; Extension of Testing of Some Disability Redesign Features | |
80 FR 47399 - Special Conditions: Bombardier Inc., Models BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 Series Airplanes; Side Stick Controllers: Pilot Strength, Pilot Control Authority, and Pilot Control | |
80 FR 47400 - Special Conditions: Bombardier Inc., Models BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 Series Airplanes; Electronic Flight Control System: Control Surface Awareness and Mode Annunciation | |
80 FR 47527 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Statement of Recovery Forms | |
80 FR 47558 - Importation of Distilled Spirits, Wine, Beer, Tobacco Products, Processed Tobacco, and Cigarette Papers and Tubes; Availability of Pilot Program and Filing Instructions To Test the Collection of Import Data for Implementation of the International Trade Data System | |
80 FR 47452 - Energy Answers Arecibo, LLC: Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Notice of a Public Meeting | |
80 FR 47408 - Establishment of the Squaw Valley-Miramonte Viticultural Area | |
80 FR 47555 - Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review | |
80 FR 47454 - Privacy Act of 1974, New System of Records | |
80 FR 47457 - Privacy Act of 1974; Amended System of Records | |
80 FR 47500 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Meeting | |
80 FR 47557 - Nebraska, Kansas & Colorado Railway, L.L.C.-Abandonment Exemption-in Decatur, Norton, and Phillips Counties, Kan., and Harlan County, Neb. | |
80 FR 47479 - Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review | |
80 FR 47490 - Notice of Agreement Filed | |
80 FR 47471 - Marine Mammals; File No. 18903 | |
80 FR 47534 - Special Nuclear Material Doorway Monitors | |
80 FR 47481 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Student Assistance General Provisions-Student Right-to-Know (SRK) | |
80 FR 47481 - International Resource Information System (IRIS); Title; OMB Number; Correction | |
80 FR 47489 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
80 FR 47474 - Procurement List; Additions | |
80 FR 47475 - Procurement List Proposed Deletion | |
80 FR 47500 - National Cancer Institute: Notice of Closed Meetings | |
80 FR 47489 - Federal Advisory Committee Act; Downloadable Security Technology Advisory Committee | |
80 FR 47516 - Economic Impact of Trade Agreements Implemented Under Trade Authorities Procedures, 2016 Report | |
80 FR 47539 - New Postal Product | |
80 FR 47540 - Change in Postal Rates | |
80 FR 47538 - New Postal Product | |
80 FR 47537 - New Postal Product | |
80 FR 47474 - Marine Mammals; File No. 15471-02 | |
80 FR 47528 - Arts Advisory Panel Meetings | |
80 FR 47429 - Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule Proposed Parental Consent Method; Jest8 Limited, Trading as Riyo, Application for Approval of Parental Consent Method | |
80 FR 47552 - South Dakota Disaster #SD-00068 | |
80 FR 47486 - Malacha Hydro Limited Partnership and Juniper Ridge Ranches, Inc.; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
80 FR 47485 - Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County; Notice of Application and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
80 FR 47482 - Nittany Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
80 FR 47487 - Comanche Trail Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed San Elizario Crossing Project; Request for Comments on Environmental Issues | |
80 FR 47483 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
80 FR 47493 - Modified Risk Tobacco Product Applications: Applications for 10 Products Submitted by Swedish Match North America Inc.; Reopening of Comment Period; Correction | |
80 FR 47502 - Advisory Committee for Women's Services (ACWS); Notice of Meeting | |
80 FR 47502 - Notice of Meeting | |
80 FR 47501 - Center for Substance Abuse Prevention; Notice of Meeting | |
80 FR 47562 - Publication of Wait-Times for the Department for the Veterans Choice Program | |
80 FR 47554 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Insitu, Inc. | |
80 FR 47552 - Vermont Disaster #VT-00016 | |
80 FR 47553 - Louisiana Disaster #LA-00054 | |
80 FR 47553 - National Women's Business Council; Quarterly Public Meeting | |
80 FR 47529 - Exelon Generation Company, LLC;Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 | |
80 FR 47533 - NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC; Seabrook Station, Unit 1 | |
80 FR 47532 - Southern California Edison;San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 | |
80 FR 47450 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
80 FR 47451 - Inviting Rural Business Development Grant Program Applications for Grants To Provide Technical Assistance for Rural Transportation Systems | |
80 FR 47453 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Arizona Advisory Committee To Receive Opinion and Perspective From Members of the Community Regarding Crime Reduction, Police Training, and Police Community Relations | |
80 FR 47453 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Arizona Advisory Committee To Receive Information From Police Agencies and Persons Involved in the Administration of Justice Regarding Police Community Relations | |
80 FR 47477 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection 3038-0096, Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements | |
80 FR 47476 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection 3038-0085, Rule 50.50 End-User Notification of Non-Cleared Swaps | |
80 FR 47511 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments; USA National Phenology Network-The Nature's Notebook Plant and Animal Observing Program | |
80 FR 47541 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service Agreement | |
80 FR 47535 - Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Program; Premium Changes and Open Season | |
80 FR 47541 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
80 FR 47505 - Office for Interoperability and Compatibility Seeks Nominations for the Project 25 Compliance Assessment Program (P25 CAP) Advisory Panel | |
80 FR 47470 - Caribbean Fishery Management Council (CFMC); Public Meeting | |
80 FR 47475 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection, Comment Request, Foreign Board of Trade Registration | |
80 FR 47504 - The Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council | |
80 FR 47509 - Mortgage and Loan Insurance Programs Under the National Housing Act-Debenture Interest Rates | |
80 FR 47478 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent to Renew Collection Number 3038-0079, Conflict of Interest Policies and Procedures by Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants | |
80 FR 47525 - Workforce Information Advisory Council | |
80 FR 47512 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments: National Spatial Data Infrastructure Cooperative Agreements Program (NSDI CAP) | |
80 FR 47550 - Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 | |
80 FR 47541 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC; Notice of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Disruptive Trading Practices | |
80 FR 47546 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change to Require an Indicator When a TRACE Report Does Not Reflect a Commission or Mark-Up/Mark-Down | |
80 FR 47490 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
80 FR 47501 - Workshop on Alternative Approaches for Identifying Acute Systemic Toxicity: Moving From Research to Regulatory Testing; Notice of Public Meeting; Registration Information | |
80 FR 47410 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Galveston, TX | |
80 FR 47480 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
80 FR 47448 - Petition for Reconsideration of Action in a Rulemaking Proceeding | |
80 FR 47411 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River at Portland, OR | |
80 FR 47480 - Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request | |
80 FR 47430 - Guidance Under Section 529A: Qualifies ABLE Programs; Correction | |
80 FR 47562 - Notice of Establishment of Commission on Care | |
80 FR 47562 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
80 FR 47462 - Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India: Final Results of Expedited Second Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order | |
80 FR 47430 - Revised Interpretation of Clean Water Act Tribal Provision | |
80 FR 47441 - Trichloroethylene (TCE); Significant New Use Rule; TCE in Certain Consumer Products | |
80 FR 47418 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 4(d) Rule for the Georgetown Salamander | |
80 FR 47402 - Russian Sanctions: Addition to the Entity List To Prevent Violations of Russian Industry Sector Sanctions | |
80 FR 47411 - Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program: Pandemic Influenza Countermeasures Injury Table | |
80 FR 47507 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless | |
80 FR 47472 - Notice of Fee Calculations for Special Use Permits | |
80 FR 47565 - Occupational Exposure to Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds |
Forest Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Utilities Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
Reclamation Bureau
Antitrust Division
Employment and Training Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Internal Revenue Service
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.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Bombardier Inc. Models BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 series airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. This design feature is side stick controllers for pitch and roll control instead of conventional wheels and columns. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
This action is effective on Bombardier Inc. on August 7, 2015. We must receive your comments by September 21, 2015.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-2567 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Joe Jacobsen, FAA, Airplane and Flightcrew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2011; facsimile 425-227-1149.
The substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
Bombardier Inc. located in Montreal, Canada, applied to Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) on January 7, 2012, and May 30, 2012, for two amended type certificates in the transport airplane category for two new airplane models designated as the BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13. The BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes are 19-passenger, twin-engine, ultra long-range large airplanes targeting the executive interior business jet market. These airplanes share an identical supplier base and significant common design elements.
The BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes will use side stick controllers for pitch and roll control. Regulatory requirements pertaining to conventional wheel and column, such as pilot strength and controllability, are not directly applicable for the side stick. In addition, pilot control authority may be uncertain because the side sticks are not mechanically interconnected as with conventional wheel and column controls.
Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Bombardier Inc. must show that the BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes meet the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25 as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-138 except for Amendment 25-137.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: Side stick controllers for pitch and roll control, which are not mechanically interconnected as with conventional wheel and column controls. These airplanes also have a fly-by-wire electronic flight control system. This system provides an electronic interface between the pilot's flight controls and the flight control surfaces for both normal and failure states, and it generates the actual surface commands that provide for stability augmentation and control about all three airplane axes. In addition, pilot control authority may be uncertain, because the side sticks are not mechanically interconnected as with conventional wheel and column controls.
Current FAA regulations do not specifically address the use of side stick controllers for pitch and roll control. The unique features of the side stick must therefore be demonstrated through flight and simulator tests to have suitable handling and control characteristics when considering the following:
1. The handling qualities tasks/requirements of the BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes special conditions and other part 25 stability, control, and maneuverability requirements, including the effects of turbulence.
2. General ergonomics: Arm rest comfort and support, local freedom of movement, displacement angle suitability, and axis harmony.
3. Inadvertent input in turbulence.
4. Inadvertent pitch-roll cross talk.
These special conditions elaborate on these requirements and contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
The FAA Handling Qualities Rating Method (HQRM) in appendix 5 of Advisory Circular 25-7C, “Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes,” may be used to show compliance.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Bombardier Inc. Models BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 series airplanes. Should Bombardier Inc. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on two model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
1.
2.
3.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Bombardier Inc. Models BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 series airplanes. These airplanes will have
This action is effective on Bombardier Inc. on August 7, 2015. We must receive your comments by September 21, 2015.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-2566 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Joe Jacobsen, FAA, Airplane and Flightcrew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2011; facsimile 425-227-1149.
The substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
Bombardier Inc. located in Montreal, Canada, applied to Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) on January 7, 2012, and May 30, 2012, for two amended type certificates in the transport airplane category for two new airplane models designated as the BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13. These airplanes are 19-passenger, twin-engine, ultra long-range large airplanes targeting the executive interior business jet market. They share an identical supplier base and significant common design elements including a fly-by-wire electronic flight control system (EFCS).
Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Bombardier Inc. must show that the BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes meet the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25 as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-138 except for Amendment 25-137.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design features, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: A fly-by-wire EFCS and no direct coupling from the flight deck controller to the control surface. As a result, the pilot is not aware of the actual control surface position as envisioned under current airworthiness standards.
These special conditions require that the flightcrew receive a suitable flight control position annunciation when a flight condition exists in which nearly full surface authority (not crew-commanded) is being used. Suitability of such a display must take into account that some pilot-demanded maneuvers (
These special conditions also address flight control system mode annunciation. Suitable mode annunciation must be provided to the flightcrew for events that significantly change the operating mode of the
These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Bombardier Models BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 series airplanes. Should Bombardier Inc. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design features, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on two model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
1. In addition to the requirements of §§ 25.143, 25.671, and 25.672, the following requirements apply:
a. The system design must ensure that the flightcrew is made suitably aware whenever the primary control means nears the limit of control authority.
Note: The term “suitably aware” indicates annunciations provided to the flightcrew are appropriately balanced between nuisance and that necessary for crew awareness.
b. If the design of the flight control system has multiple modes of operation, a means must be provided to indicate to the flightcrew any mode that significantly changes or degrades the normal handling or operational characteristics of the airplane.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to further implement U.S. sanctions on certain Russian energy projects. Specifically, in this rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amends the EAR by adding a Russian oil and gas field, the Yuzhno-Kirinskoye Field located in the Sea of Okhotsk, to the Entity List. This Russian field is reported to contain substantial reserves of oil in addition to reserves of gas. The U.S. Government has determined, therefore, that exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR to this Russian field by any person without first obtaining a BIS license present an unacceptable risk of use in, or diversion to, the activities specified in the Russian industry sector sanctions. Thus, as part of the BIS “is informed” process, this final rule adds this Russian field to the Entity List to further implement the Russian industry sector sanctions. This Russian field will be listed on the Entity List under the destination of Russia. This final rule clarifies the introductory text of the Entity List to specify that the embargoes and other special controls part of the EAR is also used to add entities to the Entity List. Lastly, this final rule makes a change to the Russian industry sector sanctions by clarifying the additional prohibition on those informed by BIS also includes end-uses that are within the scope of the Russian Industry sector sanctions.
This rule is effective August 7, 2015.
For this Entity List-related change, contact the Chair, End-User Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482-5991, Fax: (202) 482-3911, Email:
This final rule amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to further implement U.S. sanctions on certain Russian energy projects. Specifically, in this rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amends the EAR by adding a Russian oil and gas field, the Yuzhno-Kirinskoye Field located in the Sea of Okhotsk, to the Entity List.
This Russian field is reported to contain substantial reserves of oil in addition to reserves of gas. The U.S. Government has determined, therefore, that exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR to this Russian field by any person without first obtaining a BIS license present an unacceptable risk of use in, or diversion to, the activities specified in the Russian industry sector sanctions. Thus, as part of the BIS “is informed” process, this final rule adds this Russian field to the Entity List to further implement the Russian industry sector sanctions. This Russian field will be listed on the Entity List under the destination of Russia.
The Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to Part 744) identifies entities and other persons reasonably believed to be involved, or to pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved, in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The EAR imposes
The ERC, composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy, and, where appropriate, the Treasury, rules on additions to, removals from, and other modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote.
Under § 746.5(a)(2), BIS in this final rule is adding a Russian oil and gas field to the Entity List and informing the public of a license requirement for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) of any item subject to the EAR to that location. This Russian field is added based on being the site of activities that are described in Executive Order 13662 (79 FR 16169),
The Yuzhno-Kirinskoye Field is being added to the Entity List because it is reported to contain substantial reserves of oil. Consequently, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR to this Russian oil and gas field by any person without first obtaining a BIS license has been determined by the U.S. Government to present an unacceptable risk of use in, or diversion to, the activities specified in paragraph (a)(1) of § 746.5, namely exploration for, or production of, oil or gas in Russian deepwater (greater than 500 feet) locations. Therefore, a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR is warranted.
License applications for such transactions will be reviewed with a presumption of denial because such exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) are for use directly or indirectly in exploration or production from a deepwater (greater than 500 feet) project in Russia that has the potential to produce oil. In addition, no license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to the field being added to the Entity List in this rule.
This final rule adds the following one Russian gas and oil field to the Entity List to expand the EAR license requirements in § 746.5:
(1)
As noted above, BIS places entities on the Entity List based on certain sections of part 744 (Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based) and part 746 (Embargoes and Other Special Controls) of the EAR. This final rule, as a clarification for this existing BIS policy for adding persons to the Entity List, revises the first sentence of the introductory text of the Entity List to add a reference to part 746. This clarification to the introductory text will make it clear that this Supplement lists certain entities subject to license requirements for specified items under this part 744 and part 746 of the EAR.
In § 746.5 (Russian industry sector sanctions), this final rule revises the second sentence of paragraph (a)(2) for the additional prohibition on those informed by BIS to add the term “end-use” after the term “end-user.” This change clarifies that the additional prohibition described in this paragraph (a)(2), as part of the BIS “is informed” process, may be based on an end-user or end-use when BIS determines there is an unacceptable risk of use in, or diversion to, the activities specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section in Russia. This clarification does not change the scope of § 746.5, but rather clarifies the cases in which BIS will use the “is informed” process to assist exporters, reexporters, and transferors to “know” when an export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) is subject to the license requirements specified in § 746.5.
Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and as extended by the Notice of August 7, 2014, 79 FR 46959 (August 11, 2014), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222 as amended by Executive Order 13637.
1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
4. For the Entity List changes in this final rule, the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public comment and a delay in effective date are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States. (
5. For the clarification to Russian industry sector sanctions and clarification to the introductory text of the Entity List, the Department finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because allowing for notice and comment would be contrary to the public interest. The revisions to § 746.5(a)(2) and the introductory text to Supplement No. 4 to Part 744, facilitate public understanding of existing interpretations of current EAR provisions, and therefore prior notice and the opportunity for public comment would prevent BIS promulgating these revisions as soon as possible so that the public will be aware of the correct text and meaning of these current EAR provisions.
BIS finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). As mentioned previously, the revisions described here made by this rule consist of minor clarifications that need to be in place as soon as possible to avoid confusion by the public regarding the intent and meaning of these changes to the EAR.
Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for these amendments by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, parts 744 and 746 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) are amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
The additions read as follows:
This Supplement lists certain entities subject to license requirements for specified items under this part 744 and part 746 of the EAR. License requirements for these entities include exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) unless otherwise stated. This list of entities is revised and updated on a periodic basis in this Supplement by adding new or amended notifications and deleting notifications no longer in effect.
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
(a) * * *
(2)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury.
Final rule.
This document amends U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations by removing some of the requirements for documentation used to establish proof of exportation for drawback claims. Currently, claimants must provide originally signed documentary evidence or a certified copy of such documentary evidence to establish the date and fact of exportation of articles for drawback purposes. This document also amends various sections of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to reflect that there is no longer a legal requirement that the export invoice for mail shipments be certified. Additionally, this document amends Appendix B to part 191 of title 19 so that the Appendix reflects previous regulatory amendments closing four drawback offices. Finally, this document amends CBP regulations to reflect the change from the legacy agency name of U.S. Customs Service to the current agency name of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and to make other non-substantive editorial changes.
This final rule is effective on August 7, 2015.
For legal aspects, Carrie L. Owens, Chief, Entry Process & Duty Refunds Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, (202) 325-0266. For operational aspects, Celestine L. Harrell, Chief, Post Release and Trade Processes Branch, Office of International Trade, (202) 863-6937.
This document amends the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations by: (1) Removing some of the requirements for drawback claimants to establish proof of exportation; (2) conforming Appendix B to part 191 of the CBP regulations to previous regulatory changes reflecting the closing of four drawback offices; (3) updating the regulations to reflect that CBP is now part of the Department of Homeland Security; and (4) making other non-substantive editorial and nomenclature changes.
This document amends title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR) by making amendments to 19 CFR parts 181 and 191, specifically, sections 19 CFR 181.47, 191.72 and 191.74 to align CBP documentation requirements with current business practices related to the documents used to establish the date and fact of exportation for purposes of drawback. In order to qualify for drawback, claimants must establish that articles are exported or destroyed. When drawback is claimed for exported goods, the claimant must submit documentation that establishes fully the date and fact of exportation and the identity of the exporter.
The documents for establishing exportation include, but are not limited to: a bill of lading, air waybill, freight waybill, Canadian Customs manifest, and/or cargo manifest.
Acquiring pen and ink signatures for the original documentation or certified copies of such documentation is time consuming and often unrealistic for the trade. CBP realizes the difficulty of having to provide a pen and ink signature for documents when these documents are issued electronically and do not contain an actual pen and ink signature. As a consequence, drawback claims are often denied when claimants can produce only documentary evidence that does not contain a signature or copies of such documents that are not certified.
As such, CBP is amending its regulations by removing the requirement that the documentary evidence that establishes the date and fact of exportation for drawback eligibility be originally signed or that any copy of such documentary evidence must be certified. CBP will now allow claimants to provide unsigned originals or copies of documentary evidence as proof of export for drawback eligibility. Therefore, copies of original documentary evidence will no longer need to be certified.
Additionally, pursuant to 19 CFR 191.72(c), CBP currently requires a certified export invoice for mail shipments and references section 191.74. Even though section 191.72(c) cites to section 191.74 as a reference for the “certified export invoice” requirement for mail shipments, the regulatory text of 19 CFR 191.74 does not require a claimant to submit a certified copy of the export invoice, but only requires that the claimant provide the official postal records. There is no reference to “export invoice” in section 191.74. Further, the only reference to “certification” is in the title heading to section 191.74. Accordingly, CBP is removing the phrase “Certification of” from the heading text to section 191.74 as it is misleading as to what that regulation requires. Thus, CBP is clarifying that claimants submitting postal records in support of exportation in accordance with section 191.74 may submit either originals or uncertified copies of official postal records by clearly stating that within the text of section 191.74. Further, CBP is revising section 191.72(c) to accurately reflect the plain language of section 191.74 by requiring evidence of official postal records (originals or copies) that demonstrate exportation by mail.
Other non-substantive editorial changes to reflect the plain English mandate are made to these regulatory sections, 19 CFR 181.47, 191.72 and 191.74.
CBP inadvertently failed to remove from Appendix B to part 191 references to certain drawback offices when the agency previously amended the regulations to close four drawback offices. Three drawback offices were closed in 2003 (Boston, MA; New Orleans, LA; and Miami, FL) and one in 2010 (Long Beach, CA).
On November 25, 2002, the President signed into law the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135). Accordingly, as of March 1, 2003, the former U.S. Customs Service of the Department of the Treasury was transferred to DHS and reorganized to become CBP. Accordingly, this document further amends § 181.47 to reflect the change from the legacy agency name, U.S. Customs Service, to the current name, U.S. Customs and Border Protection or CBP.
Section 181.47 of the CBP regulations (19 CFR 181.47) pertains to the documents required for a NAFTA drawback claim. Paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(G) of § 181.47 is amended by removing the requirement that copies of the exemplar documents in that paragraph be certified.
In addition, section 181.47 contains the legacy agency name of Customs. Accordingly, § 181.47 is amended to remove the outdated information and replace it with the current agency name CBP in §§ 181.47(b)(2), 181.47(b)(2)(i)(A), 181.47(b)(2)(i)(B), 181.47(b)(2)(i)(F), 181.47(b)(2)(ii)(A), 181.47(b)(2)(ii)(B), 181.47(b)(2)(ii)(C), 181.47(b)(2)(ii)(D), 181.47(b)(2)(ii)(E), 181.47(b)(2)(iii)(A), 181.47(b)(2)(iii)(B), and 181.47(b)(2)(iii)(D). Additionally, the word “shall” is replaced with either “must”, “will” or “is”, as appropriate, in paragraphs (a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(i)(E), (b)(2)(ii), (b)(2)(ii)(B), (b)(2)(ii)(G), (b)(2)(ii)(H), (b)(2)(iii), (b)(2)(iv), (b)(2)(v), and (c) of § 181.47 to conform with the plain English mandate.
Section 191.72 of the CBP regulations (19 CFR 191.72) pertains to exportation procedures for drawback. Section 191.72(a) is amended by removing the terms “originally signed” and “certified” from the list of acceptable documentary evidence for establishing the date and fact of exportation for drawback eligibility. Section 191.72(c) is revised to reflect the requirements of section 191.74 and to reflect that the postal records for export shipments no longer have to be certified. Section 191.74 is amended by removing the words “Certification of” from the heading text because the text of 191.74 does not require a claimant to submit a certified copy of the postal record and the title heading cannot impose a legal requirement that is not also reflected in the regulatory text. CBP is also making it clear that claimants may submit either originals or copies of official postal records by adding the parenthetical phrase “(originals or copies)” after the phrase “official postal records” in section 191.74.
This document also makes non-substantive amendments to Appendix B, Sections II through V within part 191 of 19 CFR as discussed above.
Because the amendments in parts 181 and 191 of 19 CFR set forth in this document merely relieve a burden on the public and the amendments to the Appendix of part 191 conform the regulations to previous regulatory changes to reflect the consolidation of drawback offices, CBP finds that good cause exists for dispensing with notice and public procedure as unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). For this same reason, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), CBP finds good cause for dispensing with the requirement for a delayed effective date.
Because this document is not subject to the notice and public procedure requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553, it is not subject to the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
These amendments do not meet the criteria for a “significant regulatory action” as specified in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563.
This regulation is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1), pertaining to the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury (or that of his delegate) to approve regulations concerning drawback.
Administrative practice and procedure, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Claims, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth above, parts 181 and 191 of the CBP Regulations (19 CFR parts 181 and 191) and Appendix B to part 191 of 19 CFR are amended as set forth below:
19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1624, 3314.
The revision reads as follows:
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(G)
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1313, 1624.
4. In § 191.72:
(a) Documentary evidence of exportation (originals or copies) issued by the exporting carrier, such as a bill of lading, air waybill, freight waybill, Canadian Customs manifest, and/or cargo manifest;”.
(c) Official postal records (originals or copies) which evidence exportation by mail (§ 191.74);
The revision reads as follows:
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Final rule; Treasury decision.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) establishes, through this final rule, the approximately 44,690-acre “Squaw Valley-Miramonte” viticultural area in Fresno County, California. The viticultural area does not overlap any established viticultural area. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase.
This final rule is effective September 8, 2015.
Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated December 10, 2013, to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of this law.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12(c) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12(c)) prescribes standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:
• Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
• An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;
• A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture, including climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary;
• The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and
• A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.
TTB received a petition from Christine Flannigan, owner of the Sierra Peaks Winery and Purgatory Vineyards, on behalf of the Squaw Valley Grape Growers Group, proposing the establishment of the “Squaw Valley-Miramonte” AVA in Fresno County, California, approximately 40 miles east of the city of Fresno. The proposed AVA is a largely rural region in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and does not overlap any established AVAs. To the northwest, west, and south of the proposed AVA is the San Joaquin Valley. The Sequoia National Forest is adjacent to the northern and eastern boundaries of the proposed AVA.
The proposed Squaw Valley-Miramonte AVA contains approximately 44,690 acres and has 3 bonded wineries and 5 commercially producing vineyards, covering a total of 7.5 acres, distributed across the proposed AVA. The petition states that vineyards within the proposed AVA are small due to the region's steep and rugged terrain, which requires most vineyard work to be done by hand rather than by machine.
According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA include its climate, topography, and soils. Daytime temperatures within the proposed AVA are generally cooler than in the neighboring San Joaquin Valley to the south, west, and northwest. However, nighttime temperatures are usually warmer within the proposed AVA than within the San Joaquin Valley because cool air drains off the slopes of the proposed AVA at night and settles in the valley. The cool daytime temperatures and warm nighttime temperatures during the growing season produce higher levels of sugar and anthocyanins (pigments responsible for the color of grape skins) at harvest than occur in grapes grown in the warmer San Joaquin Valley. The temperatures in the proposed AVA also contribute to later harvest dates than in the San Joaquin Valley. The proposed AVA also receives significantly more rainfall than the San Joaquin Valley, but less than the regions to the north and east of the proposed AVA, within the Sequoia National Forest. The high rainfall amounts within the proposed AVA increase the risk of erosion, so vineyard owners plant ground cover between the vineyard rows to help hold the soil in place.
The topography of the proposed AVA consists of steep and rugged hillsides
The majority of the soils within the proposed Squaw Valley-Miramonte AVA are derived from granitic material, mainly quartz diorite. The three most common soil series are the Vista, Sierra, and Auberry series. All three soil series are described as having good drainage, which reduces the risk of root disease. The soils within the proposed AVA have pH levels ranging from a slightly acidic 5.6 to a neutral 7.3, levels which are adequate for viticulture and do not promote overly vigorous vine or canopy growth. The soils within the proposed AVA are severely deficient in nitrogen, a nutrient necessary for vine growth, and therefore require supplementation. Additionally, soils in some of the vineyards within the proposed AVA have an excess of potassium, which interferes with the vines' ability to uptake magnesium. As a result, magnesium must be added to the soil in these vineyards. To the north of the proposed AVA, the soils are primarily of the Coarsegold and Trabuco series, which are derived from weathered schist and igneous rock, respectively. The most common soil series east of the proposed AVA are the Holland series, derived from weathered granitic rock, and the Aiken series, derived from volcanic rocks. These soils are more acidic than the soils within the proposed AVA due to deep mats of decomposing needle litter from conifer trees. South and west of the proposed AVA, within the San Joaquin Valley, alluvial soils such as San Joaquin loam and San Joaquin sandy loam become common, as are soils of the Hanford and Greenfield series. These soils are all less acidic and have finer textures than the soils of the proposed AVA.
TTB published Notice No. 146 in the
After careful review of the petition, TTB finds that the evidence provided by the petitioner supports the establishment of the Squaw Valley-Miramonte AVA. Accordingly, under the authority of the FAA Act, section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and part 4 and part 9 of the TTB regulations, TTB establishes the “Squaw Valley-Miramonte” AVA in Fresno County, California, effective 30 days from the publication date of this document.
See the narrative description of the boundary of the AVA in the regulatory text published at the end of this final rule.
The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the regulatory text.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name or with a brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986.
With the establishment of this AVA, its name, “Squaw Valley-Miramonte,” will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under 27 CFR 4.39(i)(3). The text of the regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using the name “Squaw Valley-Miramonte” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, will have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin. TTB is not designating either “Squaw Valley” or “Miramonte,” standing alone, as terms of viticultural significance because both of these names are also associated with multiple locations within the United States outside the AVA.
TTB certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of an AVA name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
It has been determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this final rule.
Wine.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
27 U.S.C. 205.
(a)
(b)
(1) Orange Cove North, Calif., 1966;
(2) Pine Flat Dam, Calif., 1965; photoinspected 1978;
(3) Luckett Mtn., Calif., provisional edition 1987;
(4) Verplank Ridge, Calif., provisional edition 1987;
(5) Miramonte, Calif., 1966; and
(6) Tucker Mtn., Calif., 1966.
(c)
(1) The beginning point is located on the Orange Cove North map, at the southwest corner of section 21, T14S/R25E. From the beginning point, proceed north-northwesterly in a straight line to the marked 3,355-foot elevation point on Bear Mountain, section 5, T14S/R25E; then
(2) Proceed northeast in a straight line, crossing onto the Pine Flat Dam map and over the marked 3,354-foot elevation point on Bear Mountain, section 32, T13S/R25E, and then continuing northeasterly in a straight line and crossing onto the Luckett Mountain map, proceed to the marked 3,489-foot summit of Dalton Mountain, section 22, T13S/R25E; then
(3) Proceed easterly in a straight line to the Sequoia National Forest boundary line at the northwest corner of section 28, T13S/R26E; then
(4) Proceed east along the Sequoia National Forest boundary line, crossing onto the Verplank Ridge map, and continue south, then east, then south along the national forest boundary line, crossing onto the Miramonte map, and then continue south, then east along the national forest boundary line to the northeast corner of section 5, T14S/R27E; then
(5) Proceed south along the eastern boundary lines of sections 5, 8, and 17, T14S/R27E, to the southeast corner of section 17; then
(6) Proceed east along the northern boundary line of section 21, T14S/R27E, to the northeast corner of that section; then
(7) Proceed south along the eastern boundary lines of sections 21, 28, and 33, T14S/R27E, to the Fresno-Tulare County boundary line at the southeast corner of section 33; then
(8) Proceed west along the Fresno-Tulare County boundary line, crossing onto the Tucker Mountain map, to the southwest corner of section 34, T14S/R26E; then
(9) Proceed north along the western boundary lines of sections 34, 27, 22, and 15, T14S/R26E, to the northwest corner of section 15; then
(10) Proceed west along the southern boundary lines of sections 9, 8, and 7, T14S/R26E, and sections 12 and 11, T14S/R25E, to the southwest corner of section 11; then
(11) Proceed south along the eastern boundary lines of sections 15 and 22, T14S/R25E, to the southeast corner of section 22; then (12) Proceed west along the southern boundary line of section 22, T14S/R25E, and, crossing onto the Orange Cove North map, continue west along the southern boundary line of section 21, T14S/R25E, returning to the beginning point.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the operation of the Galveston Causeway Railroad Vertical Lift Bridge across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, mile 357.2 west of Harvey Locks, at Galveston, Galveston County, Texas. The deviation is necessary in order to conduct maintenance on the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain temporarily closed to navigation for eight hours on consecutive days during day light hours and will operate normally at all other times.
This deviation is effective from August 31 through September 5, 2015. This deviation will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 and then again from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., daily, beginning August 31 through September 5, 2015.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0741] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Jim Wetherington, Bridge Administration Branch, Coast Guard; telephone 504-671-2128, email
The BNSF Railway Company requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule of the Galveston Causeway Railroad Vertical Lift Bridge across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, mile 357.2 west of Harvey Locks, at Galveston, Galveston County, Texas.
The bridge has a vertical clearance of 8.0 feet above mean high water, elevation 3.0 feet (NAVD88), in the closed-to-navigation position and 73 feet above mean high water in the open-to-navigation position. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, the draw shall open on signal for the passage of vessels.
This temporary deviation allows the vertical lift bridge to remain closed to navigation from 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 and then again from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., daily, beginning August 31 through September 5, 2015. During this time, the bridge owner will complete cable lubing, welding joints and replacing span guide bearings. If the vessel can safely pass without an opening, the vessel may pass at the slowest safe speed. The bridge can open in case of emergency.
Navigation at the site of the bridge consists mainly of tows with barges and some recreational pleasure craft. Based on known waterway users, as well as coordination with those waterway users, it has been determined that this closure will not have a significant effect on these vessels. No alternate routes are available.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35, the draw bridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately
This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs four Multnomah County bridges: the Broadway Bridge, mile 11.7, Burnside Bridge, mile 12.4, Morrison Bridge, mile 12.8, and Hawthorne Bridge, mile 13.1, all crossing the Willamette River at Portland, OR. This deviation is necessary to accommodate the annual Portland Providence Bridge Pedal event. This deviation allows the bridges to remain in the closed-to-navigation position to allow safe roadway movement of event participants.
This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on August 9, 2015, to 12:30 p.m. on August 9, 2015.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0624] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email
Multnomah County has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the Broadway Bridge, mile 11.7, Burnside Bridge, mile 12.4, Morrison Bridge, mile 12.8, and Hawthorne Bridge, mile 13.1, all crossing the Willamette River at Portland, OR. The requested deviation is to accommodate the annual Providence Bridge Pedal event. To facilitate this event, the draws of the bridges will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation positions as follows: The Broadway Bridge, mile 11.7, provides a vertical clearance of 90 feet in the closed position; Burnside Bridge, mile 12.4, provides a vertical clearance of 64 feet in the closed position; Morrison Bridge, mile 12.8, provides a vertical clearance of 69 feet in the closed position; and Hawthorne Bridge, mile 13.1, provides a vertical clearance of 49 feet in the closed position; all clearances are referenced to the vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0. The normal operating schedule for all four bridges is set in 33 CFR 117.897, and states that the bridges need not open from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., and from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. These four bridges need not open for vessel traffic from 6 a.m. on August 9, 2015, to 12:30 p.m. on August 9, 2015. This deviation period is from 6 a.m. on August 9, 2015, to 12:30 p.m. August 9, 2015. The deviation allows the Broadway Bridge, Burnside Bridge, Morrison Bridge, and the Hawthorne Bridge all crossing the Willamette River, to remain in the closed-to-navigation position and need not open for maritime traffic from 6 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on August 9, 2015. The four bridges shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.897 at all other times. Waterway usage on this part of the Willamette River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation positions may do so at any time. The bridges will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridges so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridges must return to their regular operating schedules immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Final rule.
HHS is establishing the Pandemic Influenza Countermeasures Injury Table as authorized by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act). Through this final rule, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Secretary) adds regulations for the purpose of creating Covered Countermeasures Injury Tables. The pandemic influenza countermeasures are identified in Secretarial declarations relating to pandemic influenza, including influenza caused by the 2009 H1N1 pandemic influenza virus (hereafter referred to as the 2009 H1N1 virus) and other potential pandemic strains, such as H5N1 avian influenza.
This rule is effective September 8, 2015.
Dr. Avril M. Houston, Director, Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Healthcare Systems Bureau, HRSA, Parklawn Building, Room 11C-26, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, or by telephone (855) 266-2427. This is a toll-free number.
On March 30, 2014, HHS published the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act of 2005 (PREP Act) directs the Secretary to establish, through regulation, a Covered Countermeasures Injury Table (Table) identifying serious physical injuries that are presumed to be directly caused by the administration or use of covered countermeasures identified in PREP Act declarations issued by the Secretary.
The Secretary may only add to a Table injuries that are directly caused by the administration or use of the covered countermeasure based on “compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence.”
The PREP Act authorizes both liability protections and compensation based on the terms of the PREP Act declarations, but this final rule concerns only the compensation program, not the liability protections set forth therein.
The Secretary published the interim final rule implementing the Program on October 15, 2010.
Individuals with injuries not meeting the requirements listed on the Table may still pursue their claims as non-Table injuries under the Program. In this instance, the requester does not receive the presumption of causation for a Table injury and must demonstrate that the use or administration of the covered countermeasure directly caused the injury. Proof of a causal association for the non-Table injury must be based on compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence.
Through this final rule, the Secretary will be adding subpart K to 42 CFR part 110, which had been reserved for the purpose of creating a Covered Countermeasures Injury Table. The Table established in this final rule is limited to pandemic influenza covered countermeasures. These countermeasures are identified in Secretarial declarations relating to pandemic influenza, including influenza caused by the 2009 H1N1 virus, and other potential pandemic strains, such as H5N1 avian influenza. The Secretary may create and publish Tables in the
Through the Pandemic Influenza Countermeasures Injury Table Final Rule, the Secretary provides, as authorized by statute, a Table for several covered countermeasures listing serious physical injuries. The serious physical injuries included on the Table are injuries that are supported by compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence showing that the administration or use of the covered countermeasures directly causes such injuries. The Table lists the serious injuries directly caused by a specific countermeasure, the time interval within which the first symptom or manifestation of onset of injury must appear, and the definition of the injury. Table definitions are included to further explain each covered injury and the level of severity necessary to qualify as a Table injury.
The injuries, time intervals, definitions, and requirements reflect the Secretary's efforts to identify those serious physical injuries causally related to the covered countermeasures. The causal linkages between the covered countermeasures and these associated injuries are based on compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence. The Secretary will stay informed of updates in the scientific and medical field concerning new information about causal associations between injuries and covered countermeasures.
In this final rule, the Secretary has made the following changes to the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (QAI) of the Table for purposes of clarity.
a. Changed section (b)(4)(i) by adding an accent over the “e” in Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS). The revised section term reads, “Guillain-Barré Syndrome.” In the first sentence, added “currently is known to encompass” after “that” and delete “encompasses.” The revised sentence states, “GBS is an acute monophasic peripheral neuropathy that currently is known to encompass a spectrum of four clinicopathological subtypes described below.” In the fourth sentence, changed “nine” to “9.” The revised sentence states, “Treatment related fluctuations in all subtypes of GBS can occur within 9 weeks of GBS symptom onset and recurrence of symptoms after this time frame would not be consistent with GBS.”
b. Changed section (b)(4)(iv) by adding “The results of both . . .” to the beginning of the second sentence. The revised sentence states, “The results of both CSF and electrophysiologic studies are frequently normal in the first week of illness in otherwise typical cases of GBS.”
c. Deleted section (b)(4)(v) which states, “For all types of GBS, the onset of symptoms less than three days (72 hours) after exposure to the influenza vaccine excludes vaccine exposure as a cause” because timeframes for serious physical injuries to be Table injuries are listed in the Table, not in the QAI.
d. Changed section (b)(4)(vi) to (b)(4)(v) since (b)(4)(v) has been deleted as stated above and added to the beginning of the first sentence of section (b)(4)(v), “For GBS to qualify as a Table injury.” The revised sentence states, “For GBS to qualify as a Table injury, there must not be a more likely alternative diagnosis for the weakness.”
e. Changed section (b)(5)(i)(A) by adding “or” after “tube;”. The revised statement states, “(A) trauma or necrosis from an endotracheal tube; or.”
f. Changed section (b)(6)(i) by deleting “Definition -” before “VAP” at the beginning of the first sentence. In the fourth sentence, changed the phrase “radiographic infiltrate in the lungs that is consistent with pneumonia” to “radiographic infiltrate that is in the lungs and consistent with pneumonia.”
g. Changed section (b)(7) by adding “To qualify as Table injuries,” before “these” to the beginning of the last sentence. The revised sentence states, “To qualify as Table injuries, these manifestations must occur in patients who are being mechanically ventilated at the time of initial manifestation of the VILI.” VILI is Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury.
h. Changed section (b)(8) by adding “who are” after “patients” and before “under” to the first sentence. The revised sentence states, “Bleeding events are defined as excessive or abnormal bleeding in patients who are under the pharmacologic effects of anticoagulant therapy provided for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment.”
The NPRM set forth a 60-day public comment period, which ended on May 30, 2014. During this comment period, HHS received five sets of comments—one set from a physicians' organization and four sets from individuals. Below is a summary of the comments and HHS's responses.
Another subtype called acute motor axonal neuropathy (AMAN) is generally seen in other parts of the world and is predominated by axonal damage that primarily affects motor nerves. AMAN lacks features of demyelination. The axon is a portion of the nerve cell that transmits nerve impulses away from the nerve cell body. Another less common subtype of GBS includes acute motor and sensory neuropathy (AMSAN), which is an axonal form of GBS that is similar to AMAN, but also affects the axons of sensory nerves and roots.
According to the Brighton Collaboration, Fisher Syndrome (FS), also known as Miller-Fisher Syndrome, is a subtype of GBS characterized by ataxia, areflexia, and ophthalmoplegia, and overlap between FS and GBS may be seen with limb weakness.
GBS is proposed for inclusion on the Table because it is a serious physical injury, and the fact that it may be directly caused by the use of the monovalent 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine (hereafter 2009 H1N1 vaccine) is supported by compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence. Further, GBS is characterized by various degrees of weakness, sensory abnormality and autonomic dysfunction due to damage to peripheral nerves and nerve roots. These variants or subtypes of GBS were addressed fully in the NPRM and are adopted in the final rule.
Furthermore, as explained above, the description of GBS as stated in the NPRM, and adopted in this final rule, is complete. To the extent that one comment suggested that organ damage should be included as a Table injury, HHS respectfully disagrees. Although demyelination of peripheral nerves or axonal damage can lead to disruption of organ function, they do not lead directly to organ damage. At this time, there is no compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence to support including organ damage on the Table.
As stated in the NPRM, multiple studies performed to monitor the safety of 2009 H1N1 vaccine provide evidence that demonstrates a small statistically significant increased risk of GBS in the 6 weeks following administration of the 2009 H1N1 vaccine.
The symptoms of GBS do not develop immediately after exposure to the causative agent. The immune system requires a specified time to complete the steps leading to nerve injury and dysfunction and the early symptoms of GBS. A minimum of 3 days would be necessary from the time of exposure and immune system stimulation to the first symptoms of GBS. Therefore, onset of GBS within less than 72 hours or 3 days of immunization would be strong evidence that the vaccine is not the causative agent.
HHS believes that the
HHS has examined the impact of this rulemaking as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review, Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, section 654(c) of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999, and Executive Order 13132 on Federalism.
Executive Order 12866 requires that all regulations reflect consideration of alternatives, costs, benefits, incentives, equity, and available information. Regulations must meet certain standards, such as avoiding an unnecessary burden. Regulations that are “significant” because of cost, adverse effects on the economy, inconsistency with other agency actions, effects on the budget, or novel legal or policy issues, require special analysis. In 2011, President Obama supplemented and reaffirmed Executive Order 12866. This rulemaking is not being treated as a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the final rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Executive Order 13563 provides that, to the extent feasible and permitted by law, the public must be given a meaningful opportunity to comment on any proposed regulations, with at least a 60-day comment period. In addition, to the extent feasible and permitted by law, agencies must provide timely on-line access to both proposed and final rules of the rulemaking docket on Regulations.gov, including relevant scientific and technical findings, in an open format that can be searched and downloaded. Federal agencies must consider approaches to maintain the freedom of choice and flexibility, including disclosure of relevant information to the public. Regulations must be guided by objective scientific evidence, easy to understand, consistent, and written in plain language. Furthermore, Federal agencies must attempt to coordinate, simplify, and harmonize regulations to reduce costs and promote certainty for the public.
In this final rule, the Secretary specifies a Table identifying serious physical injuries that shall be presumed to result from the administration or use of the covered countermeasures, and the time interval in which the onset of the first symptom or manifestation of each such serious physical injury must manifest in order for such presumption to apply. The Secretary is also specifying Table definitions and requirements. This final rule would have the effect of affording certain persons a presumption that particular serious physical injuries were sustained as the result of the administration or use of covered pandemic influenza countermeasures. The Table will establish a presumption of causation and relieve requesters of the burden of demonstrating causation for covered injuries listed on the Table. However, this presumption is rebuttable based on the Secretary's review of the evidence. In addition, this Table may afford some requesters a new filing deadline.
Other than showing that a serious physical injury or death directly resulted from an injury included on the Table, individuals may, in the alternative, be eligible for compensation if they otherwise meet the CICP's requirements and can show a causation-in-fact relationship between an injury or death and a covered countermeasure. This rule is based upon legal authority.
Because any resources required to implement the regulatory requirements imposed by the Program are not required by virtue of the establishment of a Table, and because the Secretary conducted an independent analysis concerning any burdens associated with the implementation of the Program when the Secretary published the companion regulation setting forth the Program's administrative implementation,
The Secretary has also determined that this rule does not meet the criteria for a major rule as defined by Executive Order 12866 and would have no major effect on the economy or Federal expenditures. The Secretary has determined that this rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the statute providing for Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking, 5 U.S.C. 801. Similarly, it will not have effects on State, local, and tribal governments or on the private sector such as to require consultation under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This final rule comports with the 2011 supplemental requirements.
The Secretary has determined that this final rule will not have effects on State, local, and tribal governments or on the private sector such as to require consultation under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
The Secretary has also reviewed this final rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132 regarding federalism, and has determined that it does not have “federalism implications.” This final rule will not “have substantial direct effects on the States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
This final rule will not adversely affect the following elements of family well-being: family safety, family stability, marital commitment; parental rights in the education, nurture, and supervision of their children; family functioning, disposable income, or poverty; or the behavior and personal responsibility of youth, as determined under section 654(c) of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999. In fact, this rule may have a positive impact on the disposable
This final rule has no information collection requirements.
Anaphylaxis, Anticoagulation, Antiviral, Avian, Benefits, Biologics, Bleeding, Bursitis, Compensation, Countermeasure, Declaration, Deltoid, Diagnostics, Device, Eligibility, Extra-Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO), Fisher Syndrome, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, 2009 H1N1, Influenza, Injury Table, Immunization, Oseltamivir, Pandemic, Peramivir, Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act), Radiation syndrome, Respiratory protection, Relenza, Respirator, Respirator support, Tamiflu, Tracheal Stenosis, Vaccine, Vasovagal Syncope, Ventilator, Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia and Tracheobronchitis, Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury, Zanamivir.
Therefore, for the reasons stated, the Department of Health and Human Services amends 42 CFR part 110 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 247d-6e.
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(ii) The most common subtype in North America and Europe, comprising more than 90 percent of cases, is acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP) which has the pathologic and electrodiagnostic features of focal demyelination of motor and sensory peripheral nerves and nerve roots. Another subtype called acute motor axonal neuropathy (AMAN) is generally seen in other parts of the world and is predominated by axonal damage that primarily affects motor nerves. AMAN lacks features of demyelination. Another less common subtype of GBS includes acute motor and sensory neuropathy (AMSAN), which is an axonal form of GBS that is similar to AMAN, but also affects the sensory nerves and roots. AIDP, AMAN, and AMSAN are typically characterized by symmetric motor flaccid weakness, sensory abnormalities, and/or autonomic dysfunction caused by autoimmune damage to peripheral nerves and nerve roots. The diagnosis of AIDP, AMAN, and AMSAN requires bilateral flaccid limb weakness and decreased or absent deep tendon reflexes in weak limbs; a monophasic illness pattern; an interval between onset and nadir of weakness between 12 hours and 28 days; subsequent clinical plateau (the clinical plateau leads to either stabilization at the nadir of symptoms, or subsequent improvement without significant relapse); and, the absence of an identified more likely alternative diagnosis. Death may occur without a clinical plateau.
(iii) Fisher syndrome (FS), also known as Miller-Fisher Syndrome, is a subtype of GBS characterized by ataxia, areflexia, and ophthalmoplegia, and overlap between FS and AIDP may be seen with limb weakness. The diagnosis of FS requires bilateral ophthalmoparesis; bilateral reduced or absent tendon reflexes; ataxia; the absence of limb weakness (the presence of limb weakness suggests a diagnosis of AIDP); a monophasic illness pattern; an interval between onset and nadir of weakness between 12 hours and 28 days; subsequent clinical plateau (the clinical plateau leads to either stabilization at the nadir of symptoms, or subsequent improvement without significant relapse); no alteration in consciousness; no corticospinal track signs; and, the absence of an identified more likely alternative diagnosis. Death may occur without a clinical plateau.
(iv) Evidence that is supportive, but not required, of a diagnosis of all subtypes of GBS includes electrophysiologic findings consistent with GBS or an elevation of cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) protein with a total CSF white blood cell count below 50 cells per microliter. The results of both CSF and electrophysiologic studies are frequently normal in the first week of illness in otherwise typical cases of GBS.
(v) For GBS to qualify as a Table injury there must not be a more likely alternative diagnosis for the weakness. Exclusionary criteria for the diagnosis of all subtypes of GBS include the ultimate diagnosis of any of the following conditions: Chronic immune demyelinating polyradiculopathy (“CIDP”), carcinomatous meningitis, brain stem encephalitis (other than Bickerstaff brainstem encephalitis), myelitis, spinal cord infarct, spinal cord compression, anterior horn cell diseases such as polio or West Nile virus infection, subacute inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, multiple sclerosis, cauda equina compression, metabolic conditions such as hypermagnesemia or hypophosphatemia, tick paralysis, heavy metal toxicity (such as arsenic, gold, or thallium), drug-induced neuropathy (such as vincristine, platinum compounds, or nitrofurantoin), porphyria, critical illness neuropathy, vasculitis, diphtheria, myasthenia gravis, organophosphate poisoning, botulism, critical illness myopathy, polymyositis, dermatomyositis, hypokalemia, or hyperkalemia. The above list is not exhaustive.
(5)
(A) Trauma or necrosis from an endotracheal tube; or
(B) Stomal injury from a tracheostomy; or
(C) A combination of the two.
(ii) Tracheal stenosis or narrowing due to tumors (malignant or benign), infections of the trachea (such as
(6)
(ii) VAT will be considered to be present when the patient demonstrates fever, leukocytosis or leukopenia, purulent tracheal secretions, and a positive tracheal aspirate culture in the absence of a change of antibiotics within the 72 hours prior to culture. Tracheal colonization with microorganisms is common in intubated patients, but in the absence of clinical findings is not a sign of VAT.
(7)
(8)
(c)
(1) Pandemic influenza vaccines;
(2) Tamiflu;
(3) Relenza;
(4) Peramivir;
(5) Personal respiratory protection devices;
(6) Respiratory support devices;
(7) Diagnostic testing devices.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, finalize a rule under authority of section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, that provides measures that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the Georgetown salamander
This 4(d) rule is necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the Georgetown salamander because it strengthens water quality protection measures throughout the species' range, allows for consideration of new information to optimize conservation measures, and furthers conservation partnerships that can be leveraged to improve the status of the Georgetown salamander.
This rule is effective September 8, 2015.
This final rule, the final environmental assessment, and a list of references cited are available on the Internet at
Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, 10711 Burnet Rd., Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; telephone 512-490-0057; facsimile 512-490-0974. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
On August 22, 2012, we published a proposed rule in the
The Georgetown salamander is entirely aquatic and depends on water from the Edwards Aquifer in sufficient quantity and quality to meet the species' life-history requirements for survival, growth, and reproduction. Degradation of habitat, in the form of reduced water quality and quantity and disturbance of spring sites, is the main threat to this species. For more information on the Georgetown salamander and its habitat, please refer to the February 24, 2014, final listing determination (79 FR 10236).
The Act does not specify particular prohibitions, or exceptions to those prohibitions, for threatened species. Instead, under section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary of the Interior has the discretion to issue such regulations as she deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such species. The Secretary also has the discretion to prohibit by regulation, with respect to any threatened wildlife species, any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1) of the Act. Exercising this discretion, the Service developed general prohibitions (50 CFR 17.31) and exceptions to those prohibitions (50 CFR 17.32) under the Act that apply to most threatened wildlife species. Alternately, for other threatened species, under the authority of section 4(d) of the Act, the Service may develop specific prohibitions and exceptions that are tailored to the specific conservation needs of the species. In such cases, some of the prohibitions and authorizations under 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32 may be appropriate for the species and incorporated into a rule under section 4(d) of the Act. However, these rules, known as 4(d) rules, will also include provisions that are tailored to the specific conservation needs of the threatened species and may be more or less restrictive than the general provisions at 50 CFR 17.31.
Based on information we received in both public comment periods on the proposed 4(d) rule (see Summary of Comments and Recommendations), we revised the provisions of the 4(d) rule to provide greater clarity around the activities that are covered and not covered by this rule.
Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary may publish a rule that modifies the standard protections for threatened species and that contains prohibitions tailored to the conservation of the species and that are determined to be necessary and advisable. Under this 4(d) rule, the Service provides that all of the prohibitions under 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32 are necessary and advisable and, therefore, apply to the Georgetown salamander, except as noted below. This 4(d) rule will not remove or alter in any way the consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act.
For activities outside of habitat occupied by the Georgetown salamander, the final 4(d) rule provides that take of Georgetown salamanders that is incidental to regulated activities (as defined in title 30, Texas Administrative Code, section 213.3(28)) that are conducted consistent with the water quality regulations contained in chapter 11.07 of the City of Georgetown Unified Development Code (UDC 11.07) (
“Regulated activities” are defined in title 30, Texas Administrative Code, section 213.3(28) as any construction-related or post-construction activities on the Recharge Zone of the Edwards Aquifer having the potential for polluting the Edwards Aquifer and hydrologically connected surface streams. “Regulated activities” do not include the clearing of vegetation without soil disturbance, agricultural activities, oil and gas activities, routine maintenance of existing structures that does not involve additional site disturbance, and construction of single-family residences on lots larger than 2 hectares (ha) (5 acres (ac)). More specific details on spring and stream buffers can be found in sections 11.07.003A. and B. of the UDC.
When a property owner submits a development application for a regulated activity on a tract of land located over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone, that individual is required to submit a geologic assessment to the City of Georgetown. The geologic assessment identifies and describes all springs and streams on any subject property, and the UDC establishes buffer zones around identified springs and streams. For springs, the buffer encompasses 50 meters (m) (164 feet (ft)) extending from the approximate center of the spring outlet that is identified in a geologic assessment. For streams, the boundaries of the buffer must coincide with either the boundaries of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) one percent floodplain or a calculated one percent floodplain, whichever is smaller. In the absence of a FEMA floodplain or calculated one percent floodplain, these stream buffers may be no smaller than 61 m (200 ft) wide with at least 23 m (75 ft) from the centerline of the stream. Section 11.07.003 of the UDC states that no “regulated activities” may be conducted within the spring and stream buffers.
In addition to the establishment of these spring and stream buffers, the UDC outlines water quality best management practices designed to minimize sediment runoff, increase the removal of total suspended solids, prevent an increase in flow rates, and ensure spill containment for new or expanded roadways. These regulations in chapter 11.07 of the UDC are designed to reduce water quality degradation that may occur as a result of development. By reducing further water quality degradation that may result from development, these protective measures are also expected to reduce degradation to Georgetown salamander habitat that may occur.
The UDC 11.07 also outlines exemptions from the requirement to prepare a geologic assessment, the process by which a landowner may request a variance to the spring and
Properties with a site occupied by the Georgetown salamander are exempt from the spring and stream buffer requirements in chapter 11.07. Rather, UDC Appendix A outlines conservation measures (which are voluntary under the UDC) to be implemented when undertaking regulated activities that occur on a tract of land with an occupied site or within 984 ft (300 m) of an occupied site. An “occupied site” is defined in the UDC as any spring identified as a critical habitat unit by the Service for the Georgetown salamander and includes the following sites: Cobb Well, Cobb Springs, Cowen Creek Spring, Bat Well Cave, Walnut Spring, Twin Spring, Hogg Hollow Spring, Cedar Hollow Spring, Knight (Crockett Garden) Spring, Cedar Breaks Hiking Trail Spring, Water Tank Cave, Avant's (Capitol Aggregates), Buford Hollow Springs, Swinbank Spring, Shadow Canyon, San Gabriel Spring, and Garey Ranch Springs. For the purposes of this 4(d) rule, however, we define an occupied site to be any site where Georgetown salamanders have been found in the past or new sites found in the future.
For activities involving habitat occupied by the Georgetown salamander, the final 4(d) rule provides that take of the Georgetown salamander that is incidental to regulated activities that are conducted consistent with the guidelines described in Appendix A of the UDC will not be prohibited under the Act. Similar to chapter 11.07 of the UDC, the guidelines in Appendix A establish stream and spring buffers and allowable activities within those buffers; however, the measures described in Appendix A create larger, more protective buffers than those that appear in chapter 11 for unoccupied sites. First, Appendix A establishes a “No-Disturbance Zone” in the stream or waterway into which a spring drains directly; this zone extends 80 m (264 ft) upstream and downstream from the approximate center of the spring outlet of an occupied site and is bounded by the top of the bank. No regulated activities may occur within the “No-Disturbance Zone.” In addition, Appendix A establishes a “Minimal-Disturbance Zone” for the subsurface area that drains to the spring(s) at an occupied site; this zone consists of the area within 300 m (984 ft) of the approximate center of the spring outlet of an occupied site, except those areas within the “No-Disturbance Zone.” Most regulated activities are also prohibited in the “Minimal-Disturbance Zone,” but single-family developments, limited parks and open space development, and wastewater infrastructure will be allowed. For additional details on the buffers around occupied sites and prohibited actions, please refer to the UDC Appendix A.
In general, this 4(d) rule does not apply to deviations from the water quality measures in UDC 11.07 and Appendix A. Any variance from the measures and guidelines described in UDC 11.07 (non-occupied sites) is not covered by this final 4(d) rule, unless that variance has been granted by the City of Georgetown. In addition, variances from the spring and stream buffer requirements of UDC 11.07 may be granted by the City of Georgetown only if the variance is not contrary to the public interest, if due to special conditions a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship, and if the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done, in accordance with UDC section 2.05.010.A.6. Projects involving habitat occupied by the Georgetown salamander (which are not eligible for variances) where the project proponent chooses not to follow the voluntary guidelines in Appendix A of the UDC, may work with the Service to pursue take coverage by developing a habitat conservation plan (HCP) in accordance with section 10 of the Act.
Section 11.07.008 of the UDC also establishes an Adaptive Management Working Group (Working Group) that is responsible for reviewing data on a regular basis and making recommendations for specific changes in the management directions related to the voluntary conservation measures for occupied sites in Appendix A. Adaptive management for preservation of the Georgetown salamander is one of the duties tasked to the Working Group. The adaptive management described in the UDC specifically applies to the guidelines (
Section 4(d) of the Act states that “the Secretary shall issue such regulations as [s]he deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation” of species listed as threatened species. Conservation is defined in the Act to mean “to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to [the Act] are no longer necessary.”
The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the conservation of a species. For example, the Secretary may find that it is necessary and advisable not to include a taking prohibition, or to include a limited taking prohibition. See
Section 9 prohibitions make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (including harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or attempt any of these), import or export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any wildlife species listed as an endangered species, without written authorization. It also is illegal under section 9(a)(1) of the Act to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that is taken illegally. Prohibited actions consistent with section 9 of the Act are outlined for threatened wildlife in 50 CFR 17.31(a) and (b). For the Georgetown salamander, the Service has determined that a 4(d) rule tailored to its specific conservation needs is necessary and advisable, as discussed below. This final 4(d) rule provides that all prohibitions in 50 CFR 17.31(a) and (b) will apply to the Georgetown salamander, except as described below.
Under this final 4(d) rule, incidental take of the Georgetown salamander will not be considered a violation of section 9 of the Act if the take occurs on any non-Federal land and from regulated activities that are conducted consistent with the water quality protection measures contained in chapter 11.07 and Appendix A of the City of Georgetown Unified Development Code. This final 4(d) rule refers to the definition of “regulated activities” in title 30, Texas Administrative Code, section 213.3(28), which is any construction-related or post-construction activities on the recharge zone of the Edwards Aquifer having the potential for polluting the Edwards Aquifer and hydrologically connected surface streams. We have determined that this provision is necessary and advisable for the conservation of the Georgetown salamander, as explained in the paragraphs that follow.
The local community in the City of Georgetown and Williamson County has expressed a desire to design and implement a local solution to conserving the natural resources in their county, including water quality and the Georgetown salamander (City of Georgetown Resolution No. 082812-N). All currently known locations for the Georgetown salamander are within the jurisdiction of the City of Georgetown, making the city an appropriate entity to manage conservation measures that protect Georgetown salamander habitat. Because impervious cover levels within most of the watersheds known to be occupied by the Georgetown salamander are still relatively low, a window of opportunity exists to design and implement measures to protect water quality and, therefore, conserve the salamander. The City and County's approach for accomplishing this conservation goal includes regulatory and non-regulatory actions, as described below. Regulatory actions include passage of the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone Water Quality Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2013-59) by the Georgetown City Council on December 20, 2013, and the revisions to their UDC (chapter 11.07) finalized on February 24, 2015. Their approach also includes non-regulatory actions, such as the technical guidance provided in Appendix A of the UDC, which outlines additional conservation measures to protect water quality and to avoid direct destruction of occupied sites.
Habitat modification, in the form of degraded water quality and quantity and disturbance of spring sites, is the primary threat to the Georgetown salamander. The conservation measures in both chapter 11.07 and Appendix A of the UDC provide a variety of water quality protection measures, such as the creation of buffers around springs and streams where regulated activities are prohibited, designed to lessen impacts to the water quality of springs and streams in the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. The UDC is applied throughout the watersheds that contain the Georgetown salamander. Absent this 4(d) rule, the status quo would be to address development impacts through traditional tools (that is, sections 7 and 10 of the Act) that are generally applied at the project-by-project scale. The watershed-level approach in UDC 11.07 and Appendix A works to avoid incremental environmental degradation that may go unnoticed on a small, individual project scale. Through this final 4(d) rule, we can achieve a greater level of conservation for the Georgetown salamander than we could without it because it encourages rangewide implementation of water quality protective measures that are aimed at addressing the primary threat of habitat modification and degradation for Georgetown salamanders. The majority of Georgetown salamanders occur within 164 ft (50 m) of a spring outlet (Pierce
Although the areas that provide recharge and the source water for specific areas occupied by the salamander have not been precisely delineated, the watershed-level approach makes it likely that unknown recharge areas are receiving water quality protection under the UDC. This is because the UDC prohibits regulated activities within buffers around all streams located within the recharge zone and the City of Georgetown jurisdiction. In karst aquifer systems, streams often contain important recharge features called swallow holes or swallets, which allow the stream to continue flowing underground in a conduit and feed the larger aquifer or even small springs directly (White 1998, p. 172). For example, in the Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer, hydrologists generally agree that most of the aquifer's recharge comes via these streambed recharge features (Mahler
This watershed-level approach also includes an adaptive management component that will allow the Adaptive Management Working Group (Working Group) to evaluate the response of salamander populations to management actions and quickly respond and recommend adjustments, if necessary, to management strategies to protect water
• Review scientific information to understand the latest science on watershed management practices and the conservation of the Georgetown salamander;
• Recommend support for additional Georgetown salamander scientific studies and oversee a long-term monitoring program to ensure that salamander abundance at monitored locations is stable or improving;
• Conduct and evaluate water quality trend analysis as part of its long-term monitoring program to ensure water quality conditions do not decline and, in turn, result in impacts to salamander abundance; and
• Develop recommendations for changes to the UDC Appendix A for occupied sites if scientific and monitoring information indicates that water quality and salamander protection measures need changes to minimize impacts to salamander populations and to help attain the goal of species conservation.
While a window of opportunity exists to design and implement conservation measures to conserve the Georgetown salamander, human population levels and development are expected to increase rapidly in Williamson County (Texas State Data Center 2012, pp. 166-167). The success of the local community's efforts depends on their robust adaptive management program. The program is designed to monitor and quickly assess the effectiveness of the identified conservation measures and strategies and to be able to respond quickly and adapt the conservation measures and strategies to provide equal or better conservation benefits to the Georgetown salamander. The adaptive management approach will ensure that the water quality protective measures are serving their intended purpose of conserving the Georgetown salamander, thereby providing for the conservation of the species. Changes to UDC Appendix A that are agreed upon by the Working Group through the adaptive management process, provide equal or greater conservation benefits to the Georgetown salamander, and approved by the Service would be covered under this 4(d) rule.
By not prohibiting incidental take resulting from regulated activities conducted in accordance with the UDC 11.07 and Appendix A, the Service is supporting and encouraging a local solution to conservation of the Georgetown salamander. This final 4(d) rule will provide the Service the opportunity to work cooperatively, in partnership with the local community and State agencies, on conservation of the Georgetown salamander and the ecosystems on which it depends. Leveraging our conservation capacity with that of the State, local governments, and the conservation community at large may make it possible to attain biological outcomes larger than those we could attain ourselves due to the watershed-scale protection the UDC requires. Further, our local partners are best able to design solutions that minimize socioeconomic impacts, thereby encouraging participation in measures that will protect water quality and conserve the Georgetown salamander. In addition, by not prohibiting incidental take resulting from regulated activities conducted in accordance with UDC 11.07 and Appendix A, the Service is providing a streamlining mechanism for compliance with the Act for those project proponents who comply with the protective measures in UDC 11.07 and Appendix A and, thus, are considered covered by this final 4(d) rule. Project proponents who comply with these protective measures, as outlined in this final rule, can implement their projects without any potential delay from seeking incidental take coverage from the Service, while also minimizing water quality degradation. This approach provides greater regulatory certainty and streamlines compliance for project proponents and thus is likely to result in increased implementation of water quality protective measures that benefit salamanders.
In summary, this 4(d) rule is necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the Georgetown salamander because it strengthens water quality protection measures throughout the species' range, allows for consideration of new information to optimize conservation measures, and furthers conservation partnerships that can be leveraged to improve the status of the Georgetown salamander. Implementation of water quality protection measures throughout the range of the species will provide greater protection for the species than would project-by-project efforts, and provide protections to recharge areas that we may not be able to protect under our traditional tools (
If an activity that may affect the species is not regulated by UDC 11.07 or is not in accordance with UDC 11.07 and Appendix A, or a person or entity is not in compliance with all terms and conditions of UDC 11.07 and Appendix A and the activity would result in an act that would be otherwise prohibited under 50 CFR 17.31, then the general provisions of 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32 for threatened species apply. In such circumstances, the prohibitions of 50 CFR 17.31 would be in effect, and authorization under 50 CFR 17.32 would be required. In addition, nothing in this 4(d) rule affects in any way other provisions of the Act, such as the designation of critical habitat under section 4, recovery planning provisions of section 4(f), and consultation requirements under section 7.
We requested written comments from the public on the proposed 4(d) rule for the Georgetown salamander during two comment periods: February 24 to April 25, 2014, and April 9 to May 11, 2015. We also contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; scientific organizations; and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposed 4(d) rule, draft environmental assessment, and chapter 11.07 and Appendix A of the UDC during the respective comment periods.
Over the course of the two comment periods, we received 39 comment submissions. All substantive information provided during these comment periods has either been incorporated directly into this final rule or is addressed below. Comments from peer reviewers and State agencies are grouped separately.
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
While it is true that the conservation measures in UDC Appendix A may be revised, those changes would not be covered under this 4(d) rule unless they are agreed upon by the Working Group through the adaptive management process outlined in the UDC, provide
We believe the development of this 4(d) rule has been an open process comparable to that of a section 10 permit process. In addition, the process of amending the UDC is very transparent, involving monthly meetings of the Unified Development Code Advisory Committee that are open to the public with minutes and agendas posted online (
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this final 4(d) rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601
On February 24, 2014 (79 FR 10236), we published the final determination to list the Georgetown salamander as a threatened species. That rule became effective on March 26, 2014. As a result, the Georgetown salamander is currently covered by the full protections of the Act, including the full section 9 prohibitions that make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct), import or export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any wildlife species listed as an endangered species, without written authorization. It also is illegal under section 9(a)(1) of the Act to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that is taken illegally. Prohibited actions consistent with section 9 of the Act are outlined for threatened species in 50 CFR 17.31(a) and (b). This final 4(d) rule states that all prohibitions in 50 CFR 17.31(a) and (b) will apply to the Georgetown salamander, except regulated activities that are conducted consistent with the water quality protective measures contained in Chapter 11.07 and Appendix A of the Unified Development Code, which would result in a less restrictive regulation under the Act, as it pertains to the Georgetown
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
(a) This final rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.” These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or [T]ribal governments” with two exceptions. It excludes “a condition of Federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and [T]ribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding,” and the State, local, or Tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.”
(b) This 4(d) rule promulgates that all prohibitions in 50 CFR 17.31(a) and (b) will apply to the Georgetown salamander, except activities that are conducted consistent with the water quality protection measures contained in Chapter 11.07 and Appendix A of the Unified Development Code, which would result in a less restrictive regulation under the Act, as it pertains to the Georgetown salamander, than would otherwise exist. As a result, we do not believe that this rule would significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this final rule will not have significant takings implications. We have determined that the rule has no potential takings of private property implications as defined by this Executive Order because this 4(d) rule will result in a less-restrictive regulation under the Endangered Species Act than would otherwise exist. A takings implication assessment is not required.
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this final 4(d) rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact statement is not required. This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the State, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the State, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this final rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking actions that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. For reasons discussed within this final rule, we believe that the rule will not have any effect on energy supplies, distribution, and use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
This rule does not contain collections of information that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
We have prepared a final environmental assessment, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. For information on how to obtain a copy of the final environmental assessment, see
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to tribes. We determined that there are no known tribal lands within the range of the Georgetown salamander.
The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245; unless otherwise noted.
(e) Georgetown salamander
(1)
(2)
Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission).
Request for public comment.
The Federal Trade Commission requests public comment concerning the proposed parental consent method submitted by Jest8 Limited, trading as Riyo (“Riyo”), under the Voluntary Commission Approval Processes provision of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule.
Written comments must be received on or before September 3, 2015.
Interested parties may file a comment at
Miry Kim, Attorney, (202) 326-3622, or Peder Magee, Attorney, (202) 326-3538, Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580.
On October 20, 1999, the Commission issued its final Rule
Pursuant to Section 312.12(a) of the Rule, Riyo has submitted a proposed parental consent method to the Commission for approval. The full text of its application is available on the Commission's Web site at
The Commission is seeking comment on the proposed parental consent method, and is particularly interested in receiving comment on the questions that follow. These questions are designed to assist the Commission's consideration of the petition and should not be construed as a limitation on the issues on which public comment may be submitted. Responses to these questions should cite the number of the question being answered. For all comments submitted, please provide any relevant data, statistics, or any other evidence, upon which those comments are based.
1. Is this method, both with respect to the process for obtaining consent for an initial operator and any subsequent operators, already covered by existing methods enumerated in Section 312.5(b)(2) of the Rule?
2. If this is a new method, provide comments on whether the proposed parental consent method, both with respect to an initial operator and any subsequent operators, meets the requirements for parental consent laid out in 16 CFR 312.5(b)(1). Specifically, the Commission is looking for comments on whether the proposed parental consent method is reasonably calculated, in light of available technology, to ensure that the person providing consent is the child's parent.
3. Does this proposed method pose a risk to consumers' personal information? If so, is that risk outweighed by the benefit to consumers and businesses of using this method?
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 3, 2015. Write “Jest8 Limited (Trading as Riyo”) Application for Parental Consent Method, Project No. P-155405” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, including medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Jest8 Limited (Trading as Riyo) Application for Parental Consent Method, Project No. P-155405” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex E), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex E), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
By direction of the Commission.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Correction to a notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing.
This document contains corrections to a notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing (REG-102837-15) that was published in the
Written or electronic comments and request for a public hearing for the notice of proposed rulemaking at 80 FR 35602, June 22, 2015, are still being accepted and must be received by September 21, 2015.
Taina Edlund or Terri Harris at (202) 317-4541, or Sean Barnett (202) 317-5800, or Theresa Melchiorre (202) 317-4643 (not a toll-free number).
The notice of proposed rulemaking that is subject of this document is under section 529A of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing (REG-102837-15) contains errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.
Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing (REG-102837-15) that are subject to FR Doc. 2015-15280 are corrected as follows:
1. On page 35603, in the preamble, second column, twelfth line, the language “Section 529(d)(2) provides that the” is corrected to read “Section 529A(d)(2) provides that the.”
2. On page 35603, in the preamble, second column, nineteenth line, the language “529(d)(3) requires qualified ABLE” is corrected to read “529A(d)(3) requires qualified ABLE.”
3. On page 35606, in the preamble, first column, second line from the bottom of the first paragraph, the language “meaning of § 1.529A-1(b)(9)(A) or” is corrected to read “meaning of § 1.529A-1 (b)(9)(i).”
4. On page 35612, second column, second and third line from the bottom of paragraph (b)(16), the language “within the meaning of § 1.529-1(b)(9)(A) or § 1.529-2(e)(1)(i) are not qualified” is corrected to read “within the meaning of § 1.529A-1(b)(9)(i) or § 1.529A-2(e)(1)(i) are not qualified.”
5. On page 35619, third column, paragraph (a)(5)(iii) the language “furnished though a Web site posting and” is corrected to read “furnished through a Web site posting and.”
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed interpretive rule; request for comments.
Waters on the majority of Indian reservations do not have water quality standards under the Clean Water Act to protect human health and the environment. Only 40 of over 300 federally recognized tribes with
EPA must receive comments on this proposal on or before October 6, 2015. EPA will discuss this proposed rule and answer questions about it in a webinar during the above comment period. If you are interested, see EPA's Web site at
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0461, by one of the following methods:
•
•
• Fax: 202-566-0409
•
•
Fred Leutner, Standards and Health Protection Division, Office of Science and Technology (4305T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-0378; fax number: (202) 566-0409; email address:
This supplementary information section is organized as follows:
This action applies to tribal governments that seek eligibility to administer regulatory programs under the Clean Water Act (CWA, or the Act). The table below provides examples of entities that could be affected by this action or have an interest in it.
If you have questions regarding the effect of this proposed action on a particular entity, please consult the person listed in the preceding
1.
2.
3.
• Identify the proposed action by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible.
• Submit your comments by the date shown in the
Congress added CWA section 518, 33 U.S.C. 1377, as part of amendments made in 1987. Section 518(e) authorizes EPA to treat eligible Indian tribes in the same manner as it treats states for a variety of purposes, including administering each of the principal CWA regulatory programs and receiving grants under several CWA funding authorities. Section 518(e) is commonly known as the “TAS” provision, for treatment in a similar manner as a state.
Section 518(e) establishes eligibility criteria for TAS, including requirements that the tribe have a governing body carrying out substantial governmental duties and powers; that the functions to be exercised by the tribe pertain to the management and protection of water resources within the borders of an Indian reservation; and that the tribe be reasonably expected to be capable of carrying out the functions to be exercised in a manner consistent with the terms and purposes of the Act and applicable regulations. Section 518(e) also requires EPA to promulgate regulations specifying the TAS process for applicant tribes. See section II.B.
Section 518(h) defines “Indian tribe” to mean any Indian tribe, band, group, or community recognized by the Secretary of the Interior and exercising governmental authority over a federal Indian reservation. It defines “federal Indian reservation” to mean all land within the limits of any reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-way running through the reservation.
Pursuant to section 518(e), EPA promulgated several final regulations establishing TAS criteria and procedures for Indian tribes interested in administering programs under the Act. The relevant regulations addressing TAS requirements for the principal CWA regulatory programs are:
• 40 CFR 131.8 for section 303(c) water quality standards (WQS). Final rule published December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64876); proposed rule published September 22, 1989 (54 FR 39098). Referred to hereafter as the “1991 WQS TAS rule” or “1991 TAS rule”;
• 40 CFR 131.4(c) for section 401 water quality certification, published in the 1991 WQS TAS rule;
• 40 CFR 123.31-34 for section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting and other provisions, and 40 CFR 501.22-25 for the state sewage sludge management program. Final rule published December 22, 1993 (58 FR 67966); proposed rule published March 10, 1992 (57 FR 8522); and
• 40 CFR 233.60-62 for section 404 dredge or fill permitting. Final rule published February 11, 1993 (58 FR 8172); proposed rule published November 29, 1989 (54 FR 49180).
In 1994, EPA amended the above regulations to simplify the TAS process and eliminate unnecessary and duplicative procedural requirements.
This proposed action would not address or affect the TAS requirements or review process for tribes to receive grants.
In the 1991 WQS TAS rule, which addressed TAS for the WQS and certification programs, EPA explained that tribes must meet four criteria to be approved for TAS eligibility. Specifically, an applicant tribe must: (1) Be federally recognized, (2) carry out substantial governmental duties and powers over a “Federal Indian reservation” as defined in CWA section 518(h)(1), (3) have appropriate authority to regulate the quality of reservation waters, and (4) be reasonably expected to be capable of administering the CWA program. 54 FR at 39101.
The third of the criteria—regulatory authority—is the sole focus of the proposed change in statutory interpretation. This proposal would not affect the other TAS criteria or tribal application requirements relating to those criteria.
With regard to regulatory authority,
EPA specifically noted the import of language in
At the same time EPA recognized that Justice White's opinion was not a majority opinion of the Supreme Court (the other five Justices did not opine on the issue) and that the interpretation of CWA section 518 was not actually before the Court in
Ultimately, EPA took a cautious approach in the 1991 TAS rule and stated it would await further congressional or judicial guidance on the extent to which section 518 is properly interpreted as an express congressional delegation of authority.
EPA's approach required an applicant tribe to demonstrate its inherent tribal authority over the activities of non-tribal members on lands they own in fee within a reservation (“nonmember fee lands”) under the principles of
EPA noted that in applying the second prong of the
EPA adopted an identical approach and reasoning regarding tribal inherent regulatory authority in its subsequent TAS regulations (see list of regulations in section II.B). In these rules, EPA restated that the question of whether section 518 delegated authority to tribes to administer CWA regulatory programs on their reservations was unresolved and remained subject to additional consideration in light of subsequent congressional or judicial guidance.
EPA has taken final action approving TAS for CWA regulatory programs for 50 tribes since the 1991 WQS TAS rule.
As noted in section III's discussion of the 1991 TAS rule, EPA was mindful of the statement in
Since the 1991 TAS rule, there have been significant developments supporting the interpretive change EPA proposes. Notably, the first court to review a challenge to an EPA CWA TAS approval expressed the view that the statutory language of section 518 indicated plainly that Congress intended to delegate authority to Indian tribes to regulate their entire reservations, including regulation of non-Indians on fee lands within a reservation.
The TAS provision of a separate statute—the Clean Air Act (CAA)—provides additional relevant insight into congressional intent. Congress added the CAA TAS provision—section 301(d)—to the statute in 1990, only three years after it enacted CWA section 518. Although CAA section 301(d) pre-dates EPA's 1991 CWA TAS rule, it was
EPA finalized its regulations implementing CAA section 301(d) in 1998. 40 CFR part 49; 63 FR 7254 (February 12, 1998) (the “CAA Tribal Authority Rule”). The CAA TAS provision, combined with the definition of Indian tribe in CAA section 302(r), established the same basic TAS eligibility criteria for CAA purposes that apply under the CWA:
EPA noted at that time important similarities between the CAA and CWA TAS provisions. Most notably, the tribal provisions of both statutes expressly provided eligibility for tribal programs that pertain to the management and protection of environmental resources (
Several parties petitioned for judicial review of the CAA Tribal Authority Rule and challenged whether CAA section 301(d) could be properly interpreted as a delegation of authority by Congress to eligible Indian tribes.
A dissenting judge in the
As the D.C. Circuit stated in
In light of these developments, as well as EPA's experience administratively interpreting and implementing the CAA TAS provision, it is appropriate to revisit and revise EPA's approach to TAS under the CWA. In the preambles to the CWA TAS regulations from the 1990s, EPA discussed the possibility of reinterpreting CWA section 518 as an express congressional delegation of authority to tribes based on subsequent congressional or judicial guidance. The proposed action would accomplish such a reinterpretation.
Based on EPA's experience to date, the TAS application process has become significantly more burdensome than EPA anticipated in 1991. Many authorized tribes have informed EPA that the demonstration of inherent tribal authority, including application of the
In the 1991 TAS rule, EPA expressed its expert view that given the importance of surface water to tribes and their members, the serious nature of water pollution impacts, and the mobility of pollutants in water, applicant Indian tribes would generally be able to demonstrate inherent regulatory authority to set WQS for reservation waters, including as applied to nonmembers on fee lands under federal Indian law principles.
EPA thus anticipated in the early 1990s that applicant tribes would face a relatively simple initial burden of supplying basic facts to demonstrate that they retain requisite inherent authority to regulate under the CWA—including regulation of nonmember activities on fee lands—under established federal Indian law principles.
Unfortunately, EPA's expectations have not, as a general matter, been realized. Although each TAS application has varied according to the particular facts and circumstances of the applicant tribe and its reservation, the general experience confirms that demonstrations of inherent regulatory authority continue to impose unintended administrative hurdles on applicant tribes and to require substantial commitments of limited tribal and federal resources. In particular, the demonstration of inherent authority over nonmember activities on the reservation under the so-called
The elimination of such unintended administrative burdens does not, in itself, provide a legal rationale to alter EPA's interpretation of section 518. However, streamlining a TAS process that has become unnecessarily restrictive and burdensome does offer a strong policy basis for the Agency to take a careful second look at that provision and to consider—as it contemplated as early as 1991—whether intervening events have shed additional light on the appropriate statutory interpretation. Eliminating such unnecessary burdens is consistent with longstanding EPA and Executive policy to support tribal self-determination and promote and streamline tribal involvement in managing and regulating their lands and environments.
As explained in section III, EPA has long interpreted the CWA as expressing Congress' preference for tribal regulation of reservation surface water quality.
In April 2013, the National Tribal Water Council
Based on the analysis in sections III and IV above, EPA proposes to revise its interpretation of CWA section 518 and conclude definitively that Congress expressly delegated authority to Indian tribes to administer CWA regulatory programs over their entire reservations, including over nonmember activities on fee lands within the reservation of the applicant tribe, subject to the eligibility requirements in section 518. In doing so, EPA thus proposes to exercise the
EPA's revised interpretation is, most importantly, expressed in the language of section 518. Section 518(e)(2) requires only that the functions to be exercised by the applicant Indian tribe pertain to the management and protection of water resources “within the borders of an Indian reservation.” Section 518(h)(1) then defines the term “federal Indian reservation” to include all lands within the limits of any Indian reservation notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-way running through the reservation. That definition is precisely the same language that the dissent in
The effect of this proposal would be to relieve tribes of the need to demonstrate their inherent authority when they apply for TAS to administer CWA regulatory programs. In particular, this proposal would eliminate any need to demonstrate that the applicant tribe retains inherent authority to regulate the conduct of nonmembers of the tribe on fee lands under the test established by the Supreme Court in
EPA's proposal would not affect—either by expanding or contracting—the geographic scope of potential tribal TAS eligibility under the CWA. Under section 518, tribes can only obtain TAS status over waters within the borders of their reservations.
The proposed change in statutory interpretation would not alter the current approach to tribal trust lands. Indian reservations include trust lands validly set aside for Indian tribes even if such lands have not formally been designated as an Indian reservation. Many named Indian reservations were established through federal treaties with tribes, federal statutes, or Executive Orders of the President. Such reservations are often referred to as formal Indian reservations. Many tribes have lands that the United States holds in trust for the tribes, but that have not been formally designated as reservations. As EPA has consistently stated, and consistent with relevant judicial precedent, such tribal trust lands are informal reservations and thus have the same status as formal reservations for purposes of the Agency's programs.
EPA's proposed change in statutory interpretation would not affect any existing limitations on tribal criminal enforcement authority. This proposal relates solely to applicant Indian tribes' civil regulatory authority to administer CWA regulatory programs on their reservations; it does not address or in any way alter the scope of tribal criminal enforcement jurisdiction. EPA has previously established regulations addressing implementation of criminal enforcement authority on Indian reservations for those CWA programs that include potential exercises of such authority.
There could be rare instances where special circumstances limit or preclude a particular tribe's ability to accept or effectuate the congressional delegation of authority over its reservation. For example, there could be a separate federal statute establishing unique jurisdictional arrangements for a specific state or a specific reservation that could affect a tribe's ability to exercise authority under the CWA. It is also possible that provisions in particular treaties or tribal constitutions could limit a tribe's ability to exercise relevant authority.
The application requirements of existing CWA TAS regulations already require tribes to submit a statement of their legal counsel (or equivalent official) describing the basis for their assertion of authority. The statement can include copies of documents such as tribal constitutions, by-laws, charters, executive orders, codes, ordinances, resolutions, etc.
Section 10211(b) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (“SAFETEA”), Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (August 10, 2005) established a unique TAS requirement with respect to Indian tribes located in the State of Oklahoma. Under section 10211(b) of SAFETEA, tribes in Oklahoma seeking TAS under a statute administered by the EPA for the purpose of administering an environmental regulatory program must, in addition to meeting applicable TAS requirements under the EPA statute, enter into a cooperative agreement with the state that is subject to EPA approval and that provides for the tribe and state to jointly plan and administer program requirements. This requirement of SAFETEA exists apart from, and in addition to, existing TAS criteria, including the TAS criteria set forth in section 518 of the CWA. EPA's proposal relates solely to the interpretation of an existing CWA TAS requirement; it would thus have no effect on the separate TAS requirement of section 10211(b) of SAFETEA.
EPA's proposed change in statutory interpretation is not intended as any comment on the extent of tribal inherent regulatory authority. As the Agency clearly articulated in the TAS rules identified in section II.B, the importance of water resources to tribes, the serious potential impacts of water pollution on tribes' uses of their waters, and the mobility of pollutants in water all strongly support tribes' ability to demonstrate their inherent authority to regulate surface water quality on their reservations, including the authority to regulate nonmember conduct on fee lands under the Supreme Court's test established in
The proposed change in interpretation would not affect these prior TAS approvals. The proposed change would, however, modify EPA's approach going forward to be consistent with Congress' intent to delegate authority to eligible tribes. It would relieve tribes of the administrative burden associated with demonstrating their inherent regulatory authority in the TAS application process. The change in interpretation does not, however, alter EPA's prior views regarding the extent of tribal inherent regulatory authority.
Because the proposed change in statutory interpretation is consistent with existing CWA TAS regulatory text, EPA's proposal would not revise any regulatory text in the Code of Federal Regulations.
If EPA finalizes its change in interpretation, tribes would be able to rely on the congressional delegation of authority in section 518 as the source of their authority to regulate water quality on their reservations. Aside from any special circumstances (see section V.E.), the main focus in determining the extent of an applicant tribe's jurisdiction for CWA regulatory purposes would then be identifying the geographic boundaries of the Indian reservation area (whether a formal or informal reservation) over which the congressionally delegated authority would apply. EPA's existing CWA TAS regulations already provide for applicant tribes to submit a map or legal description of the reservation area that is the subject of the TAS application.
The existing regulations provide appropriate opportunities for potentially interested entities to provide input to EPA regarding any jurisdictional issues associated with a tribe's TAS application. As mentioned in section II.B. above, EPA's TAS regulations for the CWA section 303(c) WQS program include a process for notice to appropriate governmental entities—states, tribes and other federal entities located contiguous to the reservation of the applicant tribe—and provide an opportunity for such entities to provide comment on the applicant tribe's assertion of authority. EPA makes such notice broad enough that other potentially interested entities can participate in the process. 56 FR at 64884. For example, EPA routinely publishes notice of tribal TAS applications for the WQS program in relevant local newspapers covering the area of the subject reservation and in electronic media.
EPA's TAS regulations for the CWA section 402 and 404 permitting programs require an analysis of regulatory authority as part of the program approval process under 40 CFR parts 123 and 233 that are described in section II.B. As described in the Simplification Rule, EPA makes its decisions to approve or disapprove those programs as part of a public notice and comment process conducted in the
Thus, the regulations would continue to afford appropriate opportunities for interested parties to comment on tribal assertions of authority for all CWA regulatory programs. Because the principal jurisdictional issue under the proposed reinterpretation would be the boundaries of the subject reservation, any comments on an applicant tribe's assertion of authority would likely focus on the reservation boundaries.
Because this proposal merely explains EPA's revised interpretation of existing statutory requirements established in the CWA tribal provision—and does not propose any changes to the existing regulatory language applicable to CWA TAS applications—an interpretive rule is the appropriate vehicle to announce EPA's revised approach. This interpretive rule is not subject to notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. However, EPA decided to provide notice and an opportunity for comment to increase transparency and to allow interested parties to provide their views. EPA intends this process to ensure that the Agency's decision making is well informed by stakeholder views and invites comments on all aspects of this proposal to reinterpret section 518 of the CWA as a congressional delegation of authority to eligible tribes.
As noted in section V.G., EPA's proposal would not revise any regulatory text. However, if EPA finalizes the proposal, the Agency would consider revising and updating some of its existing guidance to tribes and EPA regional offices on implementing the regulations.
For example, a 1998 memorandum to EPA staff (the “Cannon-Perciasepe Memorandum”)
If EPA finalizes this proposal, the memorandum's
There would be no effect on tribes that EPA has previously found eligible for TAS for the purpose of a CWA regulatory program.
If EPA finalizes this proposed interpretive rule, then after the effective date TAS applications for CWA regulatory programs would be able to rely on the delegation from Congress as the relevant source of authority supporting their eligibility. The reinterpretation should thus streamline the TAS process for many tribes seeking eligibility to administer CWA regulatory programs. EPA anticipates that this proposed action, if finalized, could significantly reduce the time and effort for tribes to develop their TAS applications, and could encourage more tribes to apply for TAS for CWA regulatory programs.
EPA advises tribes that have already initiated TAS applications for CWA regulatory programs that the reinterpretation proposed in this action has not yet taken effect. The earliest it could take effect would be 30 days after EPA issues a final interpretive rule after reviewing and considering all comments received during the public comment period (see
EPA's proposal would have no effect on the scope of existing state regulatory programs approved by EPA under the CWA. Generally speaking, civil regulatory jurisdiction in Indian country lies with the federal government and the relevant Indian tribe, not with the states.
The proposal relates solely to the exercise of jurisdiction by Indian tribes on their reservations; it would have no effect on the scope of existing CWA regulatory programs administered by states outside of Indian country. It would neither diminish, nor enlarge, the scope of such approved state programs.
There are uncommon situations where a federal statute other than the CWA grants a state jurisdiction to regulate in areas of Indian country. For example, in a few cases EPA has approved states to operate CWA regulatory programs in areas of Indian country where the states demonstrated jurisdiction based on such a separate federal statute. This proposal is not intended to address or affect such jurisdiction that other federal statutes provide to states.
Regulations already exist to address circumstances where a state or tribe believes that unreasonable consequences could arise or have arisen as a result of differing WQS set by states and eligible Indian tribes on common bodies of water. Section 518(e) of the CWA required EPA to provide a mechanism to address such situations. The Agency did so at 40 CFR 131.7, which establishes a detailed dispute resolution mechanism. This proposal does not affect that process; it would remain available as needed to address potential state/tribal issues.
This rule would entail no significant cost. Its only direct effect would be to reduce the administrative burden for a tribe applying to administer a CWA regulatory program, and to potentially increase the pace at which tribes seek such programs. See the discussion of administrative burden and cost in section IX.B. (Paperwork Reduction Act).
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
EPA has submitted the information collection activities in this proposed interpretive rule to OMB for approval under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2515.01. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
As discussed in section II.B., EPA's regulations require that a tribe seeking to administer a CWA regulatory program must submit information to EPA demonstrating that the tribe meets the statutory criteria described in section II.A. EPA requires this information in order to determine that the tribe is eligible to administer the program.
This proposed interpretive rule would streamline the application by removing the current requirement for an applicant tribe to demonstrate its inherent regulatory authority, including demonstrating that it meets the
This estimate could overstate actual burden because (a) EPA assumed that all applications are first-time applications for CWA regulatory programs, and thus the tribes submitting them would be unable to rely on materials from previous applications for different regulatory programs; (b) EPA used a liberal estimate of the annual rate of tribal applications to ensure that the ICR does not underestimate tribal burden; and (c) EPA used a simplifying steady-state assumption in estimating annualized costs.
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 OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to EPA using the docket identified in the
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action affects only Indian tribes that seek to administer CWA regulatory programs.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action would not have federalism implications. It would not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This proposed action would apply only to tribal governments that seek eligibility to administer CWA regulatory programs. Although it could be of interest to some state governments, it would not apply directly to any state government or to any other entity. As discussed in section VII.C., the action would have no effect on the scope of existing state regulatory programs approved by EPA under the CWA.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local governments, EPA consulted with representatives of state governments to obtain meaningful and timely input for consideration in this proposal. On June 18, 2014, EPA invited ten national and regional state associations
Some participants expressed concerns, which included: Whether the proposal would affect the geographic scope of TAS under the CWA; whether there is adequate evidence of congressional intent; how the proposal would affect a state's ability to dispute a TAS application; and how the proposal would affect the status of existing TAS applications. Some states also had questions about issues unique to their situations. EPA considered this input in developing the proposed rule, particularly in developing sections IV. and V.
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from state officials.
This action has tribal implications because it would directly affect tribes seeking to administer CWA regulatory programs. However, it would neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. EPA consulted and coordinated with tribal officials under the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes early in the process of developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. A summary of that consultation and coordination follows.
EPA initiated a tribal consultation and coordination process for this action by sending a “Notification of Consultation and Coordination” letter on April 18, 2014, to all 566 federally recognized tribes. EPA contacted all federally recognized tribes, even though only tribes with reservations can apply for TAS under the CWA, because it is possible that additional tribes could acquire reservation lands in the future. The letter invited tribal leaders and designated consultation representatives to participate in the tribal consultation and coordination process. EPA held two identical webinars concerning this matter for tribal representatives on May 22 and May 28, 2014. A total of 70 tribal representatives participated in the two webinars, and tribes and tribal organizations sent 23 comment letters to EPA.
All tribal comments generally supported EPA's potential reinterpretation of section 518. Some comments expressed concerns about whether there would be adequate funding to help tribes administer CWA regulatory programs after they have TAS. EPA considered the tribal comments in developing this proposal, and will continue to consider tribal resource issues in its budgeting and planning process. However, EPA cannot assure tribes that additional funding will be available for a tribe to develop or implement the CWA regulatory program it seeks. A tribe choosing to administer such programs will need to carefully weigh its priorities and any available EPA assistance.
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe could disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
This proposed interpretive rule would not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations. This action would affect the procedures tribes must follow in order to seek TAS for CWA regulatory purposes and would not directly affect the level of environmental protection.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), EPA is proposing a significant new use rule (SNUR) for trichloroethylene (TCE). The proposed significant new use is manufacture or processing for use in a consumer product, with a proposed exception for use of TCE in cleaners and solvent degreasers, film cleaners, hoof polishes, lubricants, mirror edge sealants, and pepper spray. Persons subject to the SNUR would be required to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing any manufacturing or processing of TCE for a significant new use. The required notification would provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary based on the information available at that time, an opportunity to protect against potential unreasonable risks, if any, from that activity before it occurs.
Comments must be received on or before October 6, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0697, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or distribute in commerce chemical substances and mixtures. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Textile Product Mills (NAICS code 314).
• Wood Product Manufacturing (NAICS code 321).
• Printing and Related Support Activities (NAICS code 323).
• Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS code 325).
• Plastics and Rubber Product Manufacturing (NAICS code 326).
• Primary Metal Manufacturing (NAICS code 331).
• Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing (NAICS code 332).
• Machinery Manufacturing (NAICS code 333).
• Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing (NAICS code 334).
• Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing (NAICS code 335).
• Transportation Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS code 336).
• Furniture and Product Related Manufacturing (NAICS code 337).
• Miscellaneous Manufacturing (NAICS code 339).
• Clothing and Clothing Accessory Stores (NAICS code 488).
• Warehousing and Storage (NAICS code 493).
• Repair and Maintenance (NAICS code 811).
• National Security and International Affairs (NAICS code 928).
This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Persons who import any chemical substance governed by a final SNUR are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements and the corresponding regulations at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127; see also 19 CFR 127.28. Those persons must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA, including any SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance that is the subject of this proposed rule on or after September 8, 2015 are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)), (see 40 CFR 721.20), and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical information contact listed under
Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including those listed in TSCA section 5(a)(2). Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a significant new use notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture (including import) or process the chemical substance for that use (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)(B)). As described in Unit V., the general SNUR provisions are found at 40 CFR part 721, subpart A.
EPA is proposing a SNUR for trichloroethylene (TCE). The proposed significant new use is: Manufacturing and processing for any use in a consumer product of TCE except for use in cleaners and solvent degreasers, film cleaners, hoof polishes, lubricants, mirror edge sealants, and pepper spray.
The proposed significant use EPA has identified in this unit is a use that EPA believes is not ongoing at the time of this proposed rule. EPA is requesting public comment on this proposal, and specifically on the Agency's understanding of ongoing uses for the chemical identified. EPA is particularly interested in whether there are any ongoing uses of this chemical in consumer products of which the Agency is currently unaware. EPA would welcome specific documentation of any such ongoing uses. A consumer product is defined at 40 CFR 721.3 as “a chemical substance that is directly, or as part of a mixture, sold or made available to consumers for their use in or around a permanent or temporary household or residence, in or around a school, or in recreation.”
This proposed SNUR would require persons that manufacture (including import) or process any of the chemicals for a significant new use, consistent with the requirements at 40 CFR 721.25, to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing such manufacture or process of the chemical substance for a significant new use.
This SNUR is necessary to ensure that EPA receives timely advance notice of any future manufacturing and processing of TCE for new uses that may produce changes in human and environmental exposures. The rationale and objectives for this SNUR are explained in Unit III.
EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUR reporting requirements for potential manufacturers and processors of the chemical substance included in this proposed rule. This analysis, which is available in the docket, is discussed in Unit IX., and is briefly summarized here. In the event that a SNUN is submitted, costs are estimated to be less than $8,900 per SNUN submission for large business submitters and $6,500 for small business submitters. These estimates include the cost to prepare and submit the SNUN and the payment of a user fee. The proposed SNUR would require first-time submitters of any TSCA section 5 notice to register their company and key users with the CDX reporting tool, deliver a CDX electronic signature to EPA, and establish and use a Pay.gov E-payment account before they may submit a SNUN, for a cost of $203 per firm. However, these activities are only required of first time submitters of
This proposed SNUR would apply to TCE (Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number (CASRN 79-01-6) manufactured or processed for use in a consumer product except for use in cleaners and solvent degreasers, film cleaners, hoof polishes, lubricants, mirror edge sealants, and pepper spray. TCE is a volatile organic compound (VOC) that is produced and imported into the United States, with use estimated to be around 250 million pounds per year. It is a clear, colorless liquid that has a sweet odor and evaporates quickly (Ref. 1).
To ascertain if TCE is used in consumer products, EPA reviewed published literature, the National Institute of Health's (NIH) Household Product Database (HPD), Safety Data Sheets (SDSs), data submitted under EPA's Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule, and data submitted under EPA's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and communicated directly with domestic manufacturers and processors (Refs. 1 and 2). From review of these resources it was confirmed that the following consumer products containing TCE are available in retail outlets and e-commerce sites: Cleaners and solvent degreasers, film cleaners, hoof polishes, lubricants, mirror edge sealants, and pepper spray. Cleaners and solvents can be used to clean automotive parts, fabrics, and carpets. EPA does not believe that there are any other types of consumer products containing TCE(Ref. 1).
Following the release of the final risk assessment, EPA received a letter from PLZ Aeroscience Corporation on March 5, 2015, indicating their intent to reformulate their spray fixative product for consumers. Their letter states that they will no longer manufacture or process spray fixatives with TCE by September 1, 2015 (Ref. 3). EPA's review of the resources indicates this is the only TCE-containing spray fixative that is still used in a consumer product.
The majority (>80%) of TCE is used as an intermediate for manufacturing refrigerant chemicals. Much of the remainder, less than 14 percent, is used as a solvent for metals degreasing, leaving a relatively small percentage to account for all other uses, including its use in consumer products. In 2011, global consumption of TCE was 945 million pounds (lbs) and U.S. consumption was 255 million lbs. Nine companies, including domestic manufacturers and importers, reported a total production of 224.7 million lbs of TCE in 2011 to the CDR database. Based on the TRI data for 2012, 38 companies use TCE as a formulation component, 33 companies process TCE by repackaging the chemical, 28 companies use TCE as a manufacturing aid, and 1,113 companies use TCE for ancillary uses, such as degreasing. Overall, most U.S. consumption is attributable to two specific uses: As an intermediate for manufacturing the refrigerant (closed system) HFC-134a (a major alternative to CFC-12), and as a solvent for metal degreasing (Ref. 1).
A broad set of relevant studies including epidemiologic studies, animal bioassays, metabolism studies and mechanistic studies show that TCE exposure is associated with a wide array of adverse health effects. TCE has the potential to induce neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity, developmental toxicity, liver toxicity, kidney toxicity, endocrine effects, and several forms of cancer (Ref. 1).
TCE is fat soluble (lipophilic) and easily crosses biological membranes. It is readily absorbed into the body following oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure. Following oral ingestion TCE is rapidly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract into the systemic circulation (
The metabolism of TCE has been extensively studied in humans and experimental rodent models. Both humans and animals metabolize TCE to numerous toxicologically active metabolites to varying degrees. These metabolites are generated from and transported across multiple tissues and play a key role in causing TCE‐associated toxic effects that target the liver and kidney (Ref. 1).
TCE is characterized as carcinogenic to humans by all routes of exposure as documented in EPA's TCE Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment (Ref. 4). This conclusion is based on strong cancer epidemiological data that reported an association between TCE exposure and the onset of various cancers, primarily in the kidney, liver and the immune system (
EPA's IRIS assessment also concluded that TCE poses a potential human health hazard for non-cancer toxicity including neurotoxicity, liver and kidney effects, immunotoxicity, reproductive, and developmental effects. Also evaluated in the IRIS assessment were TCE's and its metabolites genotoxic effects. As shown through the results of
Neurotoxicity has been demonstrated in animal and human studies under both acute and chronic exposure conditions. Evaluation of the human studies revealed TCE‐induced neurotoxic effects including alterations in trigeminal nerve and vestibular function, auditory effects, changes in vision, alterations in cognitive function, changes in psychomotor effects, and neurodevelopmental outcomes. The strongest neurological evidence of human toxicological hazard is for changes in trigeminal nerve function or morphology and impairment of vestibular function. Multiple epidemiological studies in different populations have reported TCE‐induced abnormalities in trigeminal nerve
Animals and humans exposed to TCE consistently experience liver toxicity. Specific effects include the following structural changes: Increased liver weight, increase in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) synthesis (transient), enlarged hepatocytes, enlarged nuclei, and peroxisome proliferation. Several human studies reported an association between TCE exposure and significant changes in serum liver function tests used in diagnosing liver disease, or changes in plasma or serum bile acids. There was also human evidence for hepatitis accompanying immune‐related generalized skin diseases, jaundice, hepatomegaly, hepatosplenomegaly, and liver failure in TCE‐exposed workers. For kidney effects, studies in both humans and animals have shown changes in the proximate tubules of the kidney following exposure to TCE. TCE metabolites also appear to be the causative agents that induce renal toxicity (Ref. 1).
Immune‐related effects following TCE exposures have been observed in both animal and human studies. In general, these effects were associated with inducing enhanced immune responses as opposed to immunosuppressive effects. Human studies have reported a relationship between systemic autoimmune diseases, such as scleroderma with occupational exposure to TCE. There have also been a large number of case reports in TCE‐exposed workers developing a severe hypersensitivity skin disorder, often accompanied by systemic effects to the lymph nodes and other organs, such as hepatitis (Ref. 1).
The toxicological literature provides support for male and female reproductive toxicity following TCE exposure. Both the epidemiological and animal studies provide evidence of adverse outcomes to female reproductive outcomes. However, much more extensive evidence exists in support of an association between TCE exposures and male reproductive toxicity. There is evidence that the metabolism of TCE in male reproductive tract tissues is associated with adverse effects on sperm measures in both humans and animals. Furthermore, human studies support an association between TCE exposure and alterations in sperm density and quality, as well as changes in sexual drive or function and altered serum endocrine levels (Ref. 1).
An evaluation of the overall weight and strength of the evidence of the human and animal developmental toxicity data suggests an association between pre‐ and/or post-natal TCE exposures and potential adverse developmental outcomes. TCE‐induced heart malformations in animals have been identified as the most sensitive developmental toxicity endpoint for TCE. Human studies examined the possible association of TCE with various prenatal effects. These adverse effects of developmental TCE exposure could include death (spontaneous abortion, perinatal death, pre- or post-implantation loss, resorptions), decreased growth (low birth weight, small for gestational age), and congenital malformations, in particular cardiac defects, and postnatal effects such as growth, survival, developmental neurotoxicity, developmental immunotoxicity, and childhood cancers. There have also been some epidemiological studies that have consistently reported an increased incidence of birth defects in TCE‐exposed populations from exposure to contaminated water. As for human developmental neurotoxicity, studies collectively suggest that the developing brain is susceptible to TCE toxicity. These studies have reported an association with TCE exposure and central nervous system birth defects and postnatal effects such as delayed newborn reflexes, impaired learning or memory, aggressive behavior, hearing impairment, speech impairment, encephalopathy, impaired executive and motor function and attention deficit (Ref. 1).
The main route of exposure for TCE is inhalation due to its chemical properties and the nature of the consumer products. However, EPA recognizes that highly volatile compounds such as TCE may also be absorbed through the skin. (Ref. 1).
In EPA's final risk assessment for TCE, EPA examined acute risks for consumer exposures in residential settings. The assessment identified risks to consumers and residential bystanders from use of solvent degreasers and protective spray coatings, also referred to as spray fixatives, because of either their high TCE content or high potential for human exposure. TCE is also present in film cleaners, and mirror edge sealants, but these products were not evaluated because of either their low TCE content, less frequent use, or low exposure potential. The final risk assessment calculated indoor air concentrations using the Exposure and Fast Assessment Screening Tool Version 2 (E-FAST2) Consumer Exposure Model (CEM) for the consumer exposure. EPA used E-FAST2 CEM because of the lack of available emissions and monitoring data for the TCE containing consumer products (Ref. 1).
For the spray fixatives and solvent degreasers used by consumers who experience exposures, there is the potential for acute risks that could result from even one improper use of these products containing TCE. Most consumers would be unaware of the potential toxicity of consumer products containing TCE. Consequently, insufficient and inadequate hazard communication may lead to incorrect use and increased consumer and bystander exposures. Even if consumers are aware of such potential hazards, they may not take appropriate precautions or research the appropriate resources in which these precautions are addressed. Of particular concern is that TCE has harmful effects that occur below the odor threshold, meaning that smelling the chemical in the home environment is not a sufficient approach to avoid hazardous effects (Ref. 1).
EPA is concerned about the adverse health effects of TCE resulting from commercial and consumer uses of the chemical substance identified for a risk assessment as part of EPA's Existing Chemicals Management Program. EPA identified a work plan of 83 chemicals including TCE for further assessment under the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments in March 2012, to help focus and direct the activities of its Existing Chemicals Management Program. EPA reviewed readily available information on TCE including uses, physical and chemical properties, fate, exposure potential, and associated hazards to humans and the environment. TCE was selected based on concerns for its human health hazard (
EPA believes that any additional use of this chemical substance in consumer
Consistent with EPA's past practice for issuing SNURs under TSCA section 5(a)(2), EPA's decision to propose a SNUR for a particular chemical use need not be based on an extensive evaluation of the hazard, exposure, or potential risk associated with that use. Rather, the Agency action is based on EPA's determination that if the use begins or resumes, it may present a risk that EPA should evaluate under TSCA before the manufacturing or processing for that use begins. Since the new use does not currently exist, deferring a detailed consideration of potential risks or hazards related to that use is an effective use of resources. If a person decides to begin manufacturing or processing the chemical for the use, the notice to EPA allows EPA to evaluate the use according to the specific parameters and circumstances surrounding that intended use.
Based on the considerations in Unit III.A., EPA wants to achieve the following objectives with regard to the significant new use(s) that are designated in this proposed rule:
1. EPA would receive notice of any person's intent to manufacture or process TCE for the described significant new use before that activity begins.
2. EPA would have an opportunity to review and evaluate data submitted in a SNUN before the notice submitter begins manufacturing or processing TCE for the described significant new use.
3. EPA would be able to regulate prospective manufacturers or processors of TCE before the described significant new use of the chemical substance occurs, provided that regulation is warranted pursuant to TSCA section 5(e), 5(f), 6 or 7.
Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA states that EPA's determination that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after consideration of all relevant factors including:
1. The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance.
2. The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
3. The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
4. The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.
In addition to these factors enumerated in TSCA section 5(a)(2), the statute authorizes EPA to consider any other relevant factors.
To determine what would constitute a significant new use of TCE compounds subject to this proposed rule, as discussed in this unit, EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the substance, likely human exposures and environmental releases associated with possible uses, and the four factors listed in section 5(a)(2) of TSCA. EPA has preliminarily determined as the significant new use: Manufacture or processing for any use in a consumer product except for use in cleaners and solvent degreasers, film cleaners, hoof polishes, lubricants, mirror edge sealants, and pepper spray. Because TCE is not used in consumer products (with the limited exceptions of use in cleaners and solvent degreasers, film cleaners, hoof polishes, lubricants, mirror edge sealants, pepper spray, and (before September 1, 2015) spray fixatives), EPA believes new use in consumer products could increase the magnitude and duration of human exposure to TCE. Exposure to TCE through inhalation may lead to a wide array of adverse health effects, such as neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity, developmental toxicity, liver toxicity, kidney toxicity, endocrine effects, and several forms of cancer, as further explained in Unit II.C., and because of these adverse effects EPA would like the opportunity to evaluate such potential uses in consumer products for any associated risks or hazards that might exist before those uses would begin.
General provisions for SNURs appear under 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These provisions describe persons subject to the rule, recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability of the rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the final rule.
Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. According to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons subject to SNURs must comply with the same notice requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of Premanufacture Notices (PMNs) under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A). In particular, these requirements include the information submissions requirements of TSCA section 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA section 5(h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(5), and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA may take regulatory action under TSCA section 5(e), 5(f), 6 or 7 to control the activities on which it has received the SNUN. If EPA does not take action, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to explain in the
Persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance identified in a proposed or final SNUR are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b). The regulations that interpret TSCA section 12(b) appear at 40 CFR part 707, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 707.60(b) this proposed SNUR does not trigger export notification for articles. Persons who import a chemical substance identified in a final SNUR are subject to the TSCA section 13 import certification requirements, codified at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127; see also 19 CFR 127.28. Those persons must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA, including any SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B.
As discussed in the
EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not usually require developing any particular test data before submission of a SNUN. There are two exceptions:
1. Development of test data is required where the chemical substance subject to the SNUR is also subject to a test rule under TSCA section 4 (see TSCA section 5(b)(1)); and
2. Development of test data may be necessary where the chemical substance has been listed under TSCA section 5(b)(4) (see TSCA section 5(b)(2)).
SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better able to evaluate SNUNs that provide detailed information on:
• Human exposure and environmental releases that may result from the significant new uses of the chemical substance;
• Potential benefits of the chemical substance; and
• Information on risks posed by the chemical substances compared to risks posed by potential substitutes.
EPA recommends that submitters consult with the Agency prior to submitting a SNUN to discuss what data may be useful in evaluating a significant new use. Discussions with the Agency prior to submission can afford ample time to conduct any tests that might be helpful in evaluating risks posed by the substance. According to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN must comply with the same notice requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as persons submitting a PMN, including submission of test data on health and environmental effects as described in 40 CFR 720.50. SNUNs must be submitted on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN software, and submitted to the Agency in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 721.25 and 40 CFR 720.40. E-PMN software is available electronically at
EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUR reporting requirements for potential manufacturers and processors of the chemical substance included in this proposed rule (Ref. 2). In the event that a SNUN is submitted, costs are estimated at approximately $8,900 per SNUN submission for large business submitters and $6,500 for small business submitters. These estimates include the cost to prepare and submit the SNUN, and the payment of a user fee. Businesses that submit a SNUN would be subject to either a $2,500 user fee required by 40 CFR 700.45(b)(2)(iii), or, if they are a small business with annual sales of less than $40 million when combined with those of the parent company (if any), a reduced user fee of $100 (40 CFR 700.45(b)(1)). EPA's complete economic analysis is available in the public docket for this proposed rule (Ref. 2).
Under section 12(b) of TSCA and the implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 707, subpart D, exporters must notify EPA if they export or intend to export a chemical substance or mixture for which, among other things, a rule has been proposed or promulgated under TSCA section 5. For persons exporting a substance that is the subject of a SNUR, a one-time notice to EPA must be provided for the first export or intended export to a particular country. The total costs of export notification will vary by chemical, depending on the number of required notifications (
Before proposing this SNUR, EPA considered the following alternative regulatory action:
Under a TSCA section 8(a) rule, EPA could, among other things, generally require persons to report information to the agency when they intend to manufacture or process a listed chemical for a specific use or any use. However, for TCE, the use of TSCA section 8(a) rather than SNUR authority would have several limitations. First, if EPA were to require reporting under TSCA section 8(a) instead of TSCA section 5(a), EPA would not have the opportunity to review human and environmental hazards and exposures associated with the proposed significant new use and, if necessary, take immediate follow-up regulatory action under TSCA section 5(e) or 5(f) to prohibit or limit the activity before it begins. In addition, EPA may not receive important information from small businesses, because such firms generally are exempt from TSCA section 8(a) reporting requirements (see TSCA sections 8(a)(1)(A) and 8(a)(1)(B)). In view of the level of health concerns about TCE if used for the proposed significant new use, EPA believes that a
EPA welcomes comment on all aspects of this proposed rule. EPA based its understanding of the use profile of these chemicals on the published literature, the 2012 CDR submissions, market research, discussions with manufacturers, and review of SDSs. To confirm EPA's understanding, the Agency is requesting public comment on the EPA's understanding that cleaners and solvent degreasers, film cleaners, hoof polishes, lubricants, mirror edge sealants, and pepper spray contain TCE. The Agency is also requesting public comment if any of the listed uses that contain TCE are no longer available to consumers. EPA believes that other consumer products do not contain TCE, however, EPA is interested in information indicating that there are other ongoing uses of TCE in consumer products. In providing comments on an ongoing use of TCE in a consumer product, it would be helpful if you provide sufficient information for EPA to substantiate any assertions of use.
1.
2.
i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading,
ii. Follow directions. The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the technical person listed under
This proposed SNUR is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of the Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Order 12866 and 13563, entitled “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601
A SNUR applies to any person (including small or large entities) who intends to engage in any activity described in the rule as a “significant new use.” By definition of the word “new” and based on all information currently available to EPA, it appears
Therefore, EPA believes that the potential economic impact of complying with this proposed SNUR is not expected to be significant or adversely impact a substantial number of small entities. In a SNUR that published as a final rule on August 8, 1997 (62 FR 42690) (FRL-5735-4), the Agency presented its general determination that proposed and final SNURs are not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, which was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reason to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government would be impacted by this rulemaking. As such, the requirements of sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 of UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, do not apply to this action.
This action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have any effect (
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this action is not intended to address environmental health or safety risks for children.
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use.
Since this action does not involve any technical standards, section 12(d) of NTTAA, 15 U.S.C. 272 note, does not apply to this action.
This proposed rule does not invoke special consideration of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), because EPA has determined that this action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. This action does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows:
15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).
(a)
(2) Manufacture or processing for use in a consumer product except for use in cleaners and solvent degreasers, film cleaners, hoof polishes, lubricants, mirror edge sealants, and pepper spray.
(b) [Reserved]
Federal Communications Commission.
Petition for reconsideration.
A Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding by Harold Mordkofsky, on behalf of Halstad Telephone Company.
Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before August 24, 2015. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before September 1, 2015.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Alexander Minard, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-7400, email:
This is a summary of Commission's document,
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 8, 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.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Sonora, California. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. Additional RAC information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following Web site:
The meeting will be held September 10, 2015, from 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the City of Sonora Fire Department, 201 South Shephard Street, Sonora, California.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Beth Martinez, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 209-532-3671, extension 321; or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is:
1. To vote on project proposals; and
2. Make recommendations to the Forest Service from the Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties RAC.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by at least a week in advance to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Beth Martinez, RAC Coordinator, Stanislaus National Forest, 19777 Greenley Road, Sonora, California 95370; by email to
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Sonora, California. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. Additional RAC information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following Web site:
The meeting will be held August 31, 2015, from 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the City of Sonora Fire Department, 201 South Shephard Street, Sonora, California.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Beth Martinez, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 209-532-3671, extension 321; or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is for project proponents to make oral presentations about their projects.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by at least a week in advance to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Beth Martinez, RAC Coordinator, Stanislaus National Forest, 19777 Greenley Road, Sonora, California 95370; by email to
Rural Business—Cooperative Service, USDA.
Initial Notice; Correction.
This document corrects an error in the initial notice that appeared in the
This document is effective August 7, 2015.
Specialty Programs Division, Business Programs, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., MS 3226, Room 4204-South, Washington, DC 20250-3226, telephone (202) 720-1400.
In FR Doc. 2015-18391 of July 28, 2015 (80 FR 44925), make the following corrections:
1. On page 44928, in the first column, at the fifty-first line, remove “September 28” and add “August 27” in its place.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice of availability of a draft environmental impact statement.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), has issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Energy Answers Arecibo, LLC's (Energy Answers) proposed Waste to Energy Project (Project) in Arecibo, Puerto Rico. RUS is issuing the Draft EIS to inform interested parties and the general public about the proposed Project and to invite the public to comment on the scope, proposed action, and other issues addressed in the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS addresses the construction, operation, and maintenance of Energy Answers' proposed Project, a waste-to-energy generation and resource recovery facility in the Cambalache Ward of Arecibo, Puerto Rico. RUS prepared the EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended, the Council on Environmental Quality's Regulation for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and RUS's Environmental Policies and Procedures (7 CFR part 1794). RUS will hold a public hearing to receive oral comments on the Draft EIS.
The public comment period on the Draft EIS will be announced in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) EIS receipt notice, which will be published in the
The public hearing will be held at the Arecibo Country Club in Arecibo, Puerto Rico, 00612. Copies of the Draft EIS will be available for public viewing at the Arecibo Public Library (Nicolas Nabal Barreto), located at: 210 Santiago Iglesias Pantin Ave., Arecibo, Puerto Rico 00612. Parties wishing to be placed on the Project mailing list or those wishing to participate more directly with RUS as a “consulting party” in Section 106 review may submit a written request to: Ms. Lauren McGee Rayburn, Environmental Scientist, Rural Utilities Service, 84 Coxe Ave., Suite 1E, Ashville, North Carolina 28801,
For information on the proposed Project and the Draft EIS process, please contact Ms. Lauren McGee Rayburn, Environmental Scientist, Rural Utilities Service, 84 Coxe Ave., Suite 1E, Ashville, North Carolina 28801,
Energy Answers plans to request financial assistance for the proposed Project from RUS. Completing the EIS is one of RUS's requirements in processing Energy Answers' pending application, along with other technical and financial considerations. Energy Answers proposes to a construct a waste to energy generation and resource recovery facility in the Cambalache Ward of Arecibo, Puerto Rico. The proposed facility would process approximately 2100 tons of municipal waste per day and generate a net capacity of 77 megawatts (MW). The Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority will purchase power generated from the facility. The preferred location of the facility is the site of a former paper mill and would cover approximately 79.6 acres of the 90-acre parcel. The proposal would include the following facility components: A municipal solid waste receiving and processing building; processed refuse fuel storage building; boiler and steam turbine; emission control system; ash processing and storage building; and other associated infrastructure and buildings. Two other connected actions, which would be constructed by other utilities, include installation of an approximately 2.0-mile raw water line and construction of a 38 kilovolt (kV) transmission line approximately 0.8 miles in length. The connected actions will be addressed in the proposed Project's EIS.
In accordance with 7 CFR 1794.74 and 40 CFR 1502.21, RUS incorporates by reference the environmental impact analyses and associated documentation prepared by the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company (PRIDCO) and the USEPA where appropriate. PRIDCO served as a lead agency in preparing an EIS under the Puerto Rico Environmental Public Policy Act, Article 4(B)(3), Law No. 416 (September 22, 2004). The USEPA completed air quality analyses and issued a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit for the proposed Project on June 11, 2013. As applicable, the EIS will document changes in the affected environment and environmental consequences that may have changed since issuance of the PRIDCO-EIS and USEPA PSD permit.
Because the proposed Project may involve action in floodplains or wetlands, this Notice also serves as a notice of proposed floodplain or wetland action. The draft EIS will include a floodplain/wetland assessment and, if required, a floodplain/wetland statement of findings will be issued with the Final EIS.
RUS has determined that its action regarding the proposed Project would be an undertaking subject to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470 and its implementing regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR part 800). As part of its broad environmental review process, RUS must take into account the effect of the proposed Project on historic properties in accordance with Section 106. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3), RUS is using its procedures for public involvement under NEPA to meet its responsibilities to solicit and consider the views of the public during Section 106 review. Accordingly, comments submitted in response to this Notice will inform RUS decision-making in its Section 106 review process. Any party wishing to participate more directly with RUS as a “consulting party” in Section 106 review may submit a written request to the RUS contact provided in this Notice.
The Draft EIS is available in both Spanish and English for review at the following Web site:
Any final action by RUS related to the proposed Project will be subject to, and contingent upon, compliance with all relevant presidential executive orders and federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations in addition to the completion of the environmental review requirements as prescribed in RUS's Environmental Policies and Procedures, 7 CFR part 1794, as amended.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Arizona Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held on Tuesday, August 25, 2015. The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to hear from police agencies and persons involved in the administration of justice regarding police community relations. The meeting will be held at the Native American Connections, 4520 N. Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85012. It is scheduled to begin at 1:30 p.m. and adjourn at approximately 5:00 p.m.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments in the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments. The comments must be received in the Western Regional Office of the Commission by September 25, 2015. The address is Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 N. Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Persons wishing to email their comments may do so by sending them to Peter Minarik, Regional Director, Western Regional Office, at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
Tuesday, August 25, 2015 from 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. PST.
Native American Connections, 4520 N. Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85012.
Peter Minarik, DFO, at (213) 894-3437 or
United States Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of Commission Business Meeting.
Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, Public Affairs Unit (202) 376-8591.
Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the briefing and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact Pamela Dunston at (202) 376-8105 or at
This meeting is open to the public.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Arizona Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held on Wednesday, August 26, 2015. The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to receive opinion and
Members of the public are entitled to make comments in the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments. The comments must be received in the Western Regional Office of the Commission by September 30, 2015. The address is Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 N. Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Persons wishing to email their comments may do so by sending them to Peter Minarik, Regional Director, Western Regional Office, at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
Wednesday, August 26, 2015 from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. PST.
Cholla Public Library, 10050 Metro Parkway E., Phoenix, AZ 85051
Peter Minarik, DFO, at (213) 894-3437 or
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Notice of Privacy Act system of records; “COMMERCE/NOAA-23; Economic Data Collection Program for West Coast Groundfish Trawl Catch Share Program off the coast of Washington, Oregon, and California.”
This notice announces the Department of Commerce (Department) proposal for a new system of records under the Privacy Act. NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC), is creating a system of records for the mandatory collection of economic data in the West Coast Region consisting of the Economic Data Collection (EDC) for West Coast Groundfish Trawl Catch Share Program. Information will be collected from individuals under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the American Fisheries Act. This record system is necessary to evaluate information on costs of fishing and processing, revenues for harvesters and processors, and employment information.
To be considered, written comments must be submitted on or before September 8, 2015. Unless comments are received, the system of records will become effective as proposed on the date of publication of a subsequent notice in the
Comments may be mailed to Erin Steiner, NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, FRAM Division, 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle, WA 98112.
This notice announces the Department of Commerce (Department) proposal for a new system of records under the Privacy Act. NMFS' NWFSC is creating a system of records for the EDC for the West Coast Groundfish Trawl Catch Share Program. This record system is necessary to evaluate information on costs of fishing and processing, revenues for harvesters and processors, and employment information.
Under the EDC, information would be requested from individuals under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the 50 CFR 660.114. This collection would apply to all owners, lessees, and charterers of a catcher vessel registered to a limited entry trawl endorsed permit, a mothership vessel registered to a mothership permit, or a catcher-processor vessel registered to a catcher-processor-endorsed limited entry trawl permit; owners of a first receiver site license; and owners and lessees of a shorebased processor that received round or headed and gutted individual fishing quota groundfish species or whiting from a first receiver are required to submit an EDC to the NWFSC Economics and Social Science Research Program (ESSR).
The collection of information is necessary to identify participants and their roles in these fisheries and to evaluate the programs in which they participate. NMFS would collect information from individuals in order to evaluate the economic effects of fisheries programs, specifically the effects on the harvesting and processing sectors, and to determine the economic efficiency and distributional effects of the programs.
COMMENRCE/NOAA-23, Economic Data Collection (EDC) Program for West Coast Groundfish Trawl Catch Share Program off the coast of Washington, Oregon, and California.
Moderate.
The EDC system is designed as follows: (1) Participants are required to submit an annual EDC to the NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) Economics and Social Science Research Program (ESSR); (2) Upon request, the NWFSC will provide the EDC information with individual identifiers to NOAA Office for Enforcement and the U.S. Coast Guard; and (3) Upon request, NWFSC ESSR will provide the EDC information with individual identifiers to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to assist in anti-trust analysis of the Program.
NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. East, Seattle, WA 98112
System would include records for historical, annual, and current EDCs including financial information, harvest activity and cost, product and cost information, labor cost information for crew, and sales information. The EDCs request data on cost, revenue, ownership, and employment and will be used to study the economic impacts of the West Coast Trawl Groundfish Catch Share Program on affected harvesters, processors, and communities, as well as net benefits to the nation.
Each report would include the following: The name, title, telephone number, fax number, and email address of the person completing the EDC; name and address of the owner or lessee of the plant or vessel; Federal fisheries permit number; Federal processor permit number; Coast Guard vessel registration number or state vessel registration number, Federal license number, state buyer number, and an assigned internal individual identifier.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801
This information will allow NMFS to evaluate the economic effects of the West Coast Trawl Groundfish Catch Share Program, specifically the harvesting and processing sectors; the determination of the economic efficiency and distributional effects of the Program.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the PrivacyAct, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the Department of Commerce (Department). The records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed as a routine use as stated below. The Department will, when so authorized, make the determination as to the relevancy of a record prior to its decision to disclose a document.
1. In the event that a system of records maintained by the Department to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law or contract, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute or contract, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, or the necessity to protect an interest of the Department, the relevant records in the system of records, may be referred to the appropriate agency, whether Federal, State, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute or contract, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, or protecting the interest of the Department.
2. A record from this system of records may be disclosed in the course of presenting evidence to a court, magistrate, hearing officer or administrative tribunal, including disclosures to opposing counsel in the course of settlement negotiations, administrative appeals and hearings.
3. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to a Member of Congress submitting a request involving an individual when the individual has requested assistance from the Member with respect to the subject matter of the record.
4. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to the Department of Justice in connection with determining whether the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) requires disclosure thereof.
5. A record in this system will be disclosed to the Department of Treasury for the purpose of reporting and recouping delinquent debts owed the United States pursuant to the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996.
6. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to a contractor of the Department having need for the information in the performance of the contract but not operating a system of records within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552a(m).
7. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to the applicable Fishery Management Council (Council) staff and contractors tasked with the development of analyses to support Council decisions about Fishery Management Programs.
8. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities and persons when: (1) It is suspected or determined that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or whether systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
9. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to assist in anti-trust analysis of the fisheries programs.
10. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Federal, state or local agency maintaining civil, criminal or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, such as current licenses, if necessary to obtain information relevant to a Department decision concerning the assignment, hiring or retention of an individual, the issuance of a security clearance, the
11. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Federal, state, local, or international agency, in response to its request, in connection with the assignment, hiring or retention of an individual, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an individual, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter.
12. A record in this system of records which contains medical information may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the medical advisor of any individual submitting a request for access to the record under the Act and 15 CFR part 4b if, in the sole judgment of the Department, disclosure could have an adverse effect upon the individual, under the provision of 5 U.S.C. 552a(f)(3) and implementing regulations at 15 CFR 4b.6.
13. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Office of Management and Budget in connection with the review of private relief legislation as set forth in OMB Circular No. A-19 at any stage of the legislative coordination and clearance process as set forth in that Circular.
14. A record in this system may be transferred, as a routine use, to the Office of Personnel Management: for personnel research purposes; as a data source for management information; for the production of summary descriptive statistics and analytical studies in support of the function for which the records are collected and maintained; or for related manpower studies.
15. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Administrator, General Services Administration (GSA), or his designee, during an inspection of records conducted by GSA as part of that agency's responsibility to recommend improvements in records management practices and programs, under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906. Such disclosure shall be made in accordance with the GSA regulations governing inspection of records for this purpose, and any other relevant (
Disclosure to consumer reporting agencies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12) may be made from this system to “consumer reporting agencies” as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f)) and the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966 (31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3)).
Computerized data base; CDs; back-up files stored on tape; paper records in file folders in locked metal cabinets and/or locked rooms.
Records are organized and retrieved by NMFS internal identification number, name of owner or lessee, vessel permit number, buyer identification number, vessel name, or plant name. Records can be accessed by any file element or any combination thereof.
The system of records is stored in a building with doors that are locked during and after business hours. Visitors to the facility must register and must be accompanied by Federal personnel at all times. Only those that have the need to know, to carry out the official duties of their job, have access to the information. Paper records are maintained in secured file cabinets in areas that are accessible only to authorized personnel of the Data Collection Agent. Electronic records containing Privacy Act information are protected by a user identification/password. The user identification/password is issued to individuals by authorized personnel.
NMFS, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, contractors, to whom access to this information is granted in accordance with this system of records routine uses provision, are instructed on the confidential nature of this information.
All electronic information disseminated by NOAA adheres to the standards set out in Appendix III, Security of Automated Information Resources, OMB Circular A-130; the Computer Security Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-3 and 278g-4); and the Government Information Security Reform Act, Public Law 106-398; and follows NIST SP 800-18, Guide for Developing Security Plans for Federal Information Systems; NIST SP 800-26, Security Self-Assessment Guide for Information Technology Systems; and NIST SP 800-53, Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information Systems.
All records are retained and disposed of in accordance with National Archives and Records Administration regulations (36 CFR Subchapter XII, Chapter B—Records Management); Departmental directives and comprehensive records schedules; NOAA Administrative Order 205-01; and the NMFS Records Disposition Schedule, Chapter 1500.
Northwest Fisheries Science Center Economics Program Manager, NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. East, Seattle, WA 98112.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquires to the national Privacy Act Officer: Privacy Act Officer, NOAA, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 10641, Silver Spring MD 20910. Written requests must be signed by the requesting individual. Requestor must make the request in writing and provide his/her name, address, and date of the request and record sought. All such requests must comply with the inquiry provisions of the Department's Privacy Act rules which appear at 15 CFR part 4, subpart B, Appendix A.
Requests for access to records maintained in this system of records should be addressed to the same address given in the Notification Procedure section above.
The Department's rules for access, for contesting contents, and appealing initial determinations by the individual concerned are provided for in 15 CFR part 4, subpart B, Appendix A.
Information contained in this system will be collected from individuals participating in the EDC data collections.
None.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Notice of Proposed Amendment to Privacy Act System of Records: COMMERCE/NOAA-19, Permits and Registrations for United States Federally Regulated Fisheries.
This notice announces the Department of Commerce's (Department) proposal to amend the system of records entitled “COMMERCE/NOAA-19, Permits and Registrations for United States Federally Regulated Fisheries,” under the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is revising its system of records for permits and non-permit registrations for use with a variety of fisheries management programs. Information will be collected from individuals under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the American Fisheries Act, the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950, the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, the Atlantic Tunas Convention Authorization Act, the Northern Pacific Halibut Act, the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act, international fisheries regulations regarding U.S. Vessels Fishing in Colombian Treaty Waters, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. This revised record system is necessary to identify participants in the fisheries and to evaluate the qualifications of the applicants. We invite public comment on the amended system announced in this publication.
To be considered, written comments must be submitted on or before September 8, 2015. Unless comments are received, the new system of records will become effective as proposed on the date of publication of a subsequent notice in the
Comments may be mailed to Sarah Brabson, NOAA Office of the Chief Information Officer, Room 9856, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Sarah Brabson, NOAA Office of the Chief Information Officer, Room 9856, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
NMFS is revising its system of records for permit and non-permit registrations for use with a variety of fisheries management programs. NMFS requires the use of permits or registrations by participants in U.S. Federally regulated fisheries. Information collections would be requested from individuals under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the American Fisheries Act, the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950, the Atlantic Tunas Convention Authorization Act, the Northern Pacific Halibut Act, the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act, International Fisheries Regulations regarding U.S. Vessels Fishing in Colombian Treaty Waters, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Fur Seal Act. The collection of information is necessary to identify participants in these fisheries and to evaluate the qualifications of the applicants. NMFS would collect information from individuals in order to issue, renew, or transfer fishing permits, or to make non-permit registrations. NMFS may use lists of permit holders, or registrants as sample frames for the conduct of surveys to collect information necessary to the administration of the statutes cited above. The authority for the mandatory collection of the Tax Identification Number (Employer Identification Number or Social Security Number) is 31 U.S.C. 7701.
COMMERCE/NOAA-19, Permits and Registrations for United States Federally Regulated Fisheries.
None.
a. NMFS Greater Atlantic Region, 55 Great Republic Dr., Gloucester, MA 01930 (includes Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Tuna Dealer permits).
b. NMFS Southeast Region, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg FL 33701 (includes HMS International Trade Permit, Shark and swordfish vessel permits, shark and swordfish dealer permits).
c. NMFS West Coast Region, Sustainable Fisheries Division, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Bldg. #1, Seattle, WA 98115.
d. NMFS West Coast Region, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802.
e. NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037 (Pacific Highly Migratory Species database only).
f. NMFS Office of the Chief Information Officer, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (National Permits System).
g. NMFS Pacific Islands Region, 1845 Wasp Boulevard, Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.
h. NMFS Alaska Region, 709 West Ninth Street, Juneau, AK 99801.
i. NMFS Office of Science and Technology, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (National Saltwater Angler Registry).
j. NMFS Office of International Affairs, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (High Seas Fishing Compliance Act and Antarctic Marine Living Resources harvesting and dealer permit data).
k. NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 3209 Frederic St., Pascagoula, MS 39567 (Antarctic Marine Living Resources preauthorization certification data).
l. NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13130, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (Atlantic HMS Tuna vessel permits, HMS Angling Permit, HMS Charter/headboat permits database).
Owners or holders of a permit or registration as recognized by NMFS, owner agents, vessel owners, and/or operators. Individuals, who apply for any permit, permit exception, permit exemption or regulation exemption, registration, dedicated access privilege or fishing quota share either initially, annually, or by transfer. Applicants seeking permission to fish in a manner that would otherwise be prohibited in order to conduct experimental fishing. Owners of processing facilities and/or fish dealers. Permit qualifiers (persons whose incomes are used for permit qualification). Allocation assignees under a Southeast Region individual fishing quota.
For transferable permits: Current permit number, permit status information, type of application, name and type of applicant, cellular telephone number and/or fax number, hair and eye color, height and weight, ID-sized photograph, medical records for resolution of permit dispute, enforcement actions, court and legal documents, and permit sanction notice files by NOAA General Counsel, checking account numbers, cancelled checks, tax returns, internal permit number specific to each limited entry permit, baseline specifications on limited entry permit, country, captain's license, State and Federal Dealer Numbers (if applicable), name of incorporation, state and date of incorporation of business and articles of incorporation, coast on which dealer does business, processing sector, facilities where fish received, vessel landing receipts and records, dealer purchase receipts, bills of sale, type of vessel registration, NMFS unique vessel ID, year vessel built, hailing port, hailing port state, principal port, principal state, vessel operations type (catching and/or processing: for at-sea processing permit), fish hold capacity, passenger capacity, VMS status, crew size, fishery type, fishery management plan and category, maximum days at sea, quota allocation and shares, regional fishery management organization, species or species code, type of gear, gear code and rank, buoy and trap/pot color, number of tags assigned to vessel, number of traps, and dredge size and number.
Fee payment information, applicant cellular telephone number and/or fax number, email address, Web site, gender, hair and eye color, height and weight, ID-sized photograph, corporation name, Dunn and Bradstreet Corporation Number, state and date of incorporation; for all entities with a business relationship (officer, owner or shareholder) to a wreckfish certificate holder, or with a business relationship (officer, owner or shareholder) to a vessel owner or vessel lessee, position held in the business, percent ownership of the business, and citizenship status; NMFS internal identification number, county, country, marriage certificate, divorce decree, death certificate, trust documents, probated will, enforcement actions, court and legal documents, and permit sanction notices files by General Counsel, name of vessel permit applicant if not owner, and relationship to owner, type of vessel ownership, captain's license, original permit, permit payment information, name of permit transferor and number of permit before transfer, permit and vessel sale price (for permit transfers), date of permit transfer signature, notarized, sale and lease agreement with lease start and end dates if applicable, income or license qualifier for certain fisheries, Income Qualification Affidavit for income qualified fisheries, U.S. importer number, State and Federal dealer numbers (if applicable), plant name and operator, hull identification number, hailing port and hailing port state, year vessel built, location where vessel built, vessel function, vessel characteristics (length, breadth, external markings, hull/or superstructure color), gross and net tonnage, type of construction, fuel capacity and type, horsepower (engine, pump), type of product storage, fish hold capacity, live well capacity, radio call sign, vessel communication types and numbers, crew size, passenger capacity, fishery type, quota shares, vessel landing receipts and records, bills of sale, processing facility where fish are received, gear type, species/gear endorsements, buoy/trap color code, number of traps, trap tag number series, trap dimensions, trap mesh size, designated fishing zone, aquaculture reports: site description, material deposited and harvested, value of material, Highly Migratory Species workshop certificate, informational telephone calls recorded with member of public's knowledge, (or customer service evaluation and constituent statement records); U.S. Citizenship or permanent resident alien status, facility name, address, telephone information (for dealer permits), and permit or license numbers for other Federal or state permit/licenses issued.
Current permit number, permit status information, type of application, name and type of applicant, business email address, cellular telephone and/or fax number, Web site, corporation name and state and date of incorporation, Dunn and Bradstreet Corporation Number, percent/rank of ownership interest, lease start/end date, income or license qualifier for certain fisheries, United States Coast Guard (USCG) Certificate of Documentation number or state vessel registration number, U.S. Importer Number (dealers), State and Federal Dealer Numbers (if applicable), processing facility where fish are received, name of vessel, type of vessel registration, hull identification number, vessel characteristics (length, breadth, external markings, hull/or superstructure color), gross and net tonnage, type of construction, fuel capacity and type, horsepower (engine, pump), type of product storage, passenger capacity; crew size, hailing port, hailing port state, principal port, principal port state, fish hold capacity, year vessel built, fishery type, species or species code, type of fishing gear, gear code; vessel monitoring system (VMS) activation certification, vessel name, and vessel function.
Northwest Permits: NMFS internal identification number, permit/license number, applicant or new permit/license owner name, (current and new) permit/license or vessel owner name, email address, name of authorized representative and title, permit action requested, midseason sablefish tier landed amount, application fee payment information (check/money order date, check/money order number, bank account number or credit card last 4 digits, check amount), copies of checks, divorce decree, marriage certificate, death certificate, probated will, trust documents, medical records of permit owners seeking exemption from certain permit requirements, proof of citizenship, enforcement actions and settlement agreements, power of attorney documents, affidavits, court and legal documents, articles of incorporation, state and date of incorporation, permit sanction notices, period of permit lease, permit sale/lease price, sales/lease agreement. vessel name and registration number, vessel length overall, location of where vessel built, documentation of loss or destruction of vessel, vessel registration documentation (USCG or state), names of entities/individuals having a share(s) in a corporate/business entity, percent of ownership interest in corporate/
Current permit number, permit status information, type of application, name of applicant and of other individuals on application (vessel owner(s), owner's agent, dealer, corporation members), and position in company if applicable, corporation name, state and date of incorporation, cellular telephone number and/or fax number, email address, photograph identification, verification of citizenship or nationality, owner of checking account from which application processing fees made, date and number of check, enforcement actions, court and legal documents, and permit sanction notices filed by General Counsel, name of permit transferor and transferee and number of permit before transfer, letters of authorization or power of attorney, compliance with protected species workshop, USCG Certificate of Documentation number or state vessel registration number, vessel name, permits registered to vessel, international radio call sign, year vessel built, location where vessel built, endorsements, vessel markings and photograph, vessel refrigeration and capacity, fish hold capacity, communication types and addresses, fishery type, percent of ownership interest, ownership and catch history as basis for permit qualification or renewal vessel landing receipts and records, dealer purchase receipts, and bills of sale.
Current permit number, permit status information, type of application, name of applicant and of other individuals on application (vessel owner(s), owner's agent, dealer, corporation members), and position in company if applicable, corporation name, state and date of incorporation and articles of incorporation (if applicable), cellular and/or fax telephone number, business email address, country, citizenship, NMFS internal identification number, USCG Certificate of Documentation number or state vessel registration number, vessel name, reference names, owner beneficiary, death certificate, marriage certificate, divorce decree, trust documents, probated will, medical information for emergency transfer of certain permits only, enforcement actions, court and legal documents, and permit sanction notices files by General Counsel, bank account number, canceled checks, tax returns, name of Alaska Native tribe, community of residence, fishery community organization, community governing body contact person, nonprofit name, community represented by nonprofit, cooperative representative, percent of ownership interest, permit restrictions, quota type, names of other quota holders if affiliated with any, cooperative member receiving quota against cap, names and relationship of permit transferor and transferee, transfer eligibility certificate, sector and region before transfer, reason for transfer, broker's name and fee, lien information (if applicable), quota transfer costs, permit financing source, permit fee, sale/lease agreement, period of lease, agreement to return shares (if applicable), and documentation of military service for certain quota leases; for crab rationalization: Affidavit that right of first refusal contracts were signed, number of units and pounds of fish transferred, applicable dealer license numbers, processing plant name and identification, operation type and operator, type of vessel registration, State of Alaska registration number, NMFS vessel identification number, hull identification number, hailing port and hailing port state, vessel breadth, gross tonnage, fuel capacity and horsepower, numbers of existing permits if applicable to current application, documentation of loss or destruction of a vessel, list of vessels in a vessel cooperative, vessel operations type in terms of catching and/or processing, species/gear endorsements for fisheries requiring vessel monitoring systems, fishery type, species or species code, fishery management plan, days at sea allocations, quota shares, type of fishing gear, gear code, vessel landing receipts and records, bills of sale, delivery receipts, dealer purchase receipts, and processing sector and facility where fish are received.
Name of applicant and of other individuals on application (vessel owner(s), vessel operator(s), owner's agent, dealer, corporation members), citizenship, cellular telephone and/or fax number, email, positions of individuals in company if applicable, corporation name, State and date of incorporation (if applicable), current permit number, permit status information, type of application, internal identification number, percent/rank of ownership interest, hull identification number, vessel photograph, type of vessel registration, USCG Certificate of Documentation number or state vessel registration number, vessel name, year vessel built, where vessel built, fish hold capacity,
Current permit number, permit status information, type of application, name of applicant and of other individuals on application (vessel owner(s), owner's agent, dealer, corporation members), and position in company if applicable, corporation name, state and date of incorporation and articles of incorporation (if applicable), nationality, cellular telephone and/or fax number, type of vessel (commercial fishing, charter), where vessel built, year vessel built, fish hold capacity, USCG Certificate of Documentation number or state vessel registration number, vessel name, International Maritime Organization number (if issued), vessel communication types and serial numbers, details of tamper-proof VMS elements, ice classification, processing equipment, international radio call sign, foreign vessel flag, previous vessel flag, previous vessel name, permit number of supporting foreign vessel, crew size, species code, type of fishing gear, information on the known and anticipated impacts of bottom trawling gear on vulnerable marine ecosystems, species and amount to be imported, and the products to be derived from an anticipated catch of krill.
Email address, business telephone number, designation as owner-operator or for-hire vessel, vessel name and registration/documentation number, and a statement of the region(s) in which the registrant fishes.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801
This information will allow NMFS to identify owners and holders of permits and non-permit registrations; identify vessel owners and operators; evaluate requests by applicants and current participants, or agency actions, related to the issuance, renewal, transfer, revocation, suspension or modification of a permit or registration.
1. In the event that a system of records maintained by the Department to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law or contract, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute or contract, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, or the necessity to protect an interest of the Department, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred to the appropriate agency, whether Federal, State, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute or contract, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, or protecting the interest of the Department.
2. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, in the course of presenting evidence to a court, magistrate or administrative tribunal, including disclosures to opposing counsel representing the requester and/or subject of the records in the course of settlement negotiations.
3. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to a Member of Congress submitting a request involving an individual when the individual has requested assistance from the Member with respect to the subject matter of the record.
4. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Department of Justice in connection with determining whether disclosure thereof is required by the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).
5. A record in this system will be disclosed to the Department of Treasury for the purpose of reporting and recouping delinquent debts owed the United States pursuant to the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996.
6. A record in this system may be disclosed to the Department of Homeland Security for the purposes of determining the admissibility of certain seafood imports into the United States.
7. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a contractor of the Department having need for the information in the performance of the contract, but not operating a system of records within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552a(m).
8. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to approved persons at the state or interstate level within the applicable Marine Fisheries Commission for the purpose of co-managing a fishery or for making determinations about eligibility for permits when state data are all or part of the basis for the permits.
9. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to the applicable Fishery Management Council (Council) staff and contractors tasked with the development of analyses to support Council decisions about Fishery Management Programs.
10. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to the applicable NMFS Observer Program for purposes of identifying current permit owners and vessels and making a random assignment of observers to vessels in a given fishing season.
11. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to the applicable regional or international fisheries management body for the purposes of identifying current permit owners and vessels pursuant to applicable statutes or regulations and/or conservation and management measures adopted by a regional or international fisheries management body, such as: The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, International Pacific Halibut Commission, and International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.
12. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (1) It is suspected or determined that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identify theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems
Disclosure to consumer reporting agencies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12) may be made from this system to “consumer reporting agencies” as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f)) and the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966 (31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3)).
Computerized database; CDs; back-up files stored on tape, paper records stored in file folders in locked metal cabinets and/or locked rooms.
Records are organized and retrieved by NMFS internal identification number, name of entity, permit number, vessel name or identification number, or processing plant name. Records can be accessed by any file element or any combination thereof.
The system of records is stored in a building with doors that are locked during and after business hours. Visitors to the facility must register with security guards and must be accompanied by Federal personnel at all times. Records are stored in a locked room and/or a locked file cabinet. Electronic records containing Privacy Act information are protected by a user identification/password. The user identification/password is issued to individuals as authorized by authorized personnel.
All electronic information disseminated by NOAA adheres to the standards set out in Appendix III, Security of Automated Information Resources, OMB Circular A-130; the Computer Security Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-3 and 278g-4); and the Government Information Security Reform Act, Public Law 106-398; and follows NIST SP 800-18, Guide for Developing Security Plans for Federal Information Systems; NIST SP 800-26, Security Self-Assessment Guide for Information Technology Systems; and NIST SP 800-53, Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information Systems.
All records are retained and disposed of in accordance with National Archive and Records Administration regulations (36 CFR Chapter XII, Subchapter B—Records Management); Departmental directives and comprehensive records schedules; NOAA Administrative Order 205-01; and the NMFS Records Disposition Schedule, Chapter 1500.
For records at location a.: Division Chief, Fisheries Statistics Office, NMFS Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS Greater Atlantic Region, 55 Great Republic Dr., Gloucester, MA 01930.
For records at location b.: Assistant Regional Administrator for Operations, Management, and Information Services, NMFS Southeast Region, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.
For records at location c.: Permit Team Leader, NMFS West Coast Region, Sustainable Fisheries Division, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Bldg. #1, Seattle, WA 98115.
For records at location d.: Permits Specialist, NMFS West Coast Region, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802.
For records at location e.: Supervisory IT Specialist, NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037 (Pacific Highly Migratory Species database only).
For records at location f.: Supervisory IT Specialist, NMFS Office of the Chief Information Officer, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (National Permits System).
For records at location g.: Information/Permit Specialist, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS Pacific Islands Region, 1845 Wasp Boulevard, Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.
For records at location h.: Information/Permit Specialist, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS Alaska Region, 709 West Ninth Street, Juneau, AK 99801.
For records at location i.: Chief, Fisheries Statistics Division, NMFS Office of Science and Technology, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (National Saltwater Angler Registry).
For records at location j.: Fishery Management Specialist, Office of International Affairs, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (High Seas Fishing Compliance Act and Antarctic Marine Living Resources harvesting and dealer permit data).
For records at location k.: Fishery Biologist, NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 3209 Frederic St., Pascagoula, MS 39567 (Antarctic Marine Living Resources preauthorization certification data).
For records at location l.: Division Chief, Highly Migratory Species Management (F/SF1), NMFS 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13458, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (Atlantic HMS Tuna vessel permits, HMS Angling Permit, HMS Charter/headboat permits database).
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the national or regional Privacy Act Officer:
Privacy Act Officer, NOAA, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 10641, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Privacy Act Officer, NMFS Greater Atlantic Region, 55 Great Republic Dr., Gloucester, MA 01930.
Privacy Act Officer, NMFS Southeast Region, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.
Privacy Act Officer, NMFS West Coast Region, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Bldg. #1, Seattle, WA 98115.
Privacy Act Officer, NMFS West Coast Region, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802.
Privacy Act Officer, NMFS Pacific Islands Region, 1845 Wasp Boulevard, Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.
Privacy Act Officer, NMFS Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, Alaska 99802, or delivered to the Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, Alaska 99801.
Written requests must be signed by the requesting individual. Requestor must make the request in writing and provide his/her name, address, and date of the request and record sought. All such requests must comply with the inquiry provisions of the Department's Privacy Act rules which appear at 15 CFR part 4, Appendix A.
Requests for access to records maintained in this system of records should be addressed to the same address given in the Notification section above.
The Department's rules for access, for contesting contents, and appealing initial determinations by the individual concerned are provided for in 15 CFR part 4, Appendix A.
Information in this system will be collected from individuals applying for a permit or registration or from an entity
None.
On March 30, 2015, Polaris Industries, Inc., operator of Subzone 167B, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board for its facility located in Osceola, Wisconsin.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce finds that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on carbazole violet pigment 23 (CVP-23) from India would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.
Effective Date: August 7, 2015.
Jacqueline Arrowsmith, Office VII, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5255.
On December 29, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the CVD order on CVP-23 from India.
The Department received an adequate substantive response from the domestic industry within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department did not receive a response from the Government of India or any respondent interested party to the proceeding. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(l)(ii)(B)(2) and (C)(2), the Department conducted an expedited review of this
The merchandise subject to this
The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The issues discussed include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy and the net countervailable subsidy rate likely to prevail if the
Pursuant to sections 752(b)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
The Department is issuing and publishing these final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On May 7, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the negative preliminary determination of circumvention of the antidumping duty order
Effective date: August 7, 2015.
Andrew Huston, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4261.
On July 29, 2014, the Department initiated an anti-circumvention inquiry of the antidumping duty order on PET film from the UAE, pursuant to section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.225(h).
The products covered by the order are all gauges of raw, pre-treated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, whether extruded or co-extruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer more than 0.00001 inches thick. Also excluded is roller transport cleaning film which has at least one of its surfaces modified by application of 0.5 micrometers of SBR latex. Tracing and drafting film is also excluded. Polyethylene terephthalate film is classifiable under subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
This anti-circumvention inquiry covers PET film produced in Bahrain by JBF Bahrain from inputs (PET chips and silica chips) manufactured in the UAE, and that is subsequently exported from Bahrain to the United States.
All issues raised in the comments by parties in this proceeding are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
In the
This notice is the only reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), 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
This negative final circumvention determination is published in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on xanthan gum from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The period of review (“POR”) is July 19, 2013, through June 30, 2014.
Effective date: August 7, 2015.
Brandon Farlander or Erin Kearney, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0182 or (202) 482-0167, respectively.
The scope of the order covers dry xanthan gum, whether or not coated or blended with other products. Further, xanthan gum is included in this order regardless of physical form, including, but not limited to, solutions, slurries, dry powders of any particle size, or unground fiber. Merchandise covered by the scope of this order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States at subheading 3913.90.20. This tariff classification is provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Based on an analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) information, and questionnaire responses provided by A.H.A. International Co., Ltd. (“AHA”) and Deosen, the Department preliminarily determines that AHA did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR. For additional information regarding this determination,
Consistent with an announced refinement to its assessment practice in non-market economy (“NME”) cases, the Department is not rescinding this review for AHA, but intends to complete the review and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review.
Based on record evidence, the Department preliminarily finds that Deosen Biochemical Ltd. and Deosen Biochemical (Ordos) Ltd. are affiliated pursuant to section 771(33)(G) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”) and should be treated as a single entity for AD purposes pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f). Furthermore, based on record evidence, the Department preliminarily finds that Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co., Ltd. (aka Inner Mongolia Fufeng Biotechnologies Co., Ltd.), Shandong Fufeng Fermentation Co. Ltd., and Xinjiang Fufeng Biotechnologies Co., Ltd. are affiliated pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the Act and should be treated as a single entity for AD purposes pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f). For additional information,
The Department preliminarily determines that information placed on the record by the mandatory respondents Deosen and Fufeng, as well as by the separate rate applicants CP Kelco (Shandong) Biological Company Limited and Shanghai Smart Chemicals Co. Ltd., demonstrates that these companies are entitled to separate rate status. Hebei Xinhe Biochemical Co. Ltd., which did not claim that it made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, failed to submit a separate rate application or separate rate certification. Therefore, this company is not eligible for separate rate status.
The Department's change in policy regarding conditional review of the PRC-wide entity applies to this administrative review.
The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to respondents not selected for individual examination when the Department limits its examination of companies subject to the administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Generally, the Department looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents not individually examined in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act articulates a preference for not calculating an all-others rate using rates which are zero,
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act. The Department calculated export prices and constructed export prices in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Given that the PRC is a NME country, within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, the Department calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary results of this review,
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR:
The Department intends to disclose to parties the calculations performed for these preliminary results of review not later than ten days after the date of the public announcement of, or, if there is no public announcement, within five days after the date of publication of, the preliminary results of review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
All submissions, with limited exceptions, must be filed electronically using ACCESS.
Unless otherwise extended, the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Upon issuance of the final results of this review, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
On October 24, 2011, the Department announced a refinement to its assessment practice in NME antidumping duty cases.
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
The Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds U.S. price. The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On April 1, 2015, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on chloropicrin from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”)
Howard Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5193.
On April 1, 2015, the Department initiated a sunset review of the order on chloropicrin from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act.
The merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order is chloropicrin, also known as trichloronitromethane. A major use of the product is as a pre-plant soil fumigant (pesticide). Such merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”) item number 2904.90.50.05.
All issues raised in this sunset review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Chloropicrin from the People's Republic of China” from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (“Decision Memorandum”). The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the
Pursuant to Section 752(c)(3) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”') of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 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.
We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In response to requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta (pasta) from Italy,
Joy Zhang or George McMahon, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1168 or (202) 482-1167, respectively.
Imports covered by the order are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta. The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under items 1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.
On October 10, 2014, and November 25, 2014, respectively, Dalla Costa Alimentare srl (Dalla Costa) and Pasta Lensi S.r.l. (Pasta Lensi) timely withdrew their requests for an administrative review.
The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Constructed export price or export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary results,
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margins
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. If the weighted-average dumping margin for La Molisana or the Rummo Group is not zero or
In accordance with the Department's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by each respondent for which they did not know that their merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification,
We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for respondents noted above will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 15.45 percent, the all-others rate established in the antidumping investigation as modified by the section 129 determination.
The Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of these preliminary results.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, using Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS system within 30 days of publication of this notice.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, the Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their case briefs, within 120 days after issuance of these preliminary results.
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and increase the subsequent assessment of the antidumping duties by the amount of antidumping duties reimbursed.
These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On May 29, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received a timely request for a new shipper review (NSR) from
Mary Kolberg, AD/CVD Operations Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; Telephone: (202) 482-1785.
The antidumping duty order on cased pencils from the PRC published in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), Wah Yuen certified that it did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation (POI).
In addition to the certifications described above, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2), Wah Yuen submitted documentation establishing the following: (1) The date on which it first shipped subject merchandise for export to the United States; (2) the volume of its first shipment; and (3) the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(B), the period of review (POR) for new shipper reviews initiated in the month immediately following the semiannual anniversary month will be the six-month period immediately preceding the semiannual anniversary month. Therefore, based on the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), the Department finds that the request from Wah Yuen meets threshold requirements for the initiation of a new shipper review of shipments of cased pencils from the PRC produced and exported by Wah Yuen.
The Department intends to issue the preliminary results of this new shipper review no later than 180 days from the date of initiation and the final results of the review no later than 90 days after the date the preliminary results are issued.
We will instruct CBP to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until the completion of the review, of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for the entry of the subject merchandise from Wah Yuen, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e). Specifically, the bonding privilege will apply only to entries of subject merchandise exported and produced by Wah Yuen, the sales of which are the basis for this NSR request.
Interested parties requiring access to proprietary information in the new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306.
This initiation and notice are published in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Caribbean Fishery Management Council's (Council) Outreach and Education Advisory Panel (OEAP) will meet.
The meeting will be held on August 25, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at CFMC Office, 270 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918.
Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918, telephone: (787) 766-5926.
The OEAP will meet to discuss the items contained in the following agenda:
The OEAP meeting will convene on August 25, 2015, from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m.
The meeting is open to the public, and will be conducted in English. Fishers and other interested persons are invited to attend and participate with oral or written statements regarding agenda issues.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and/other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolón, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918, telephone (787) 766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Peter Tyack, Ph.D., Senior Scientist Emeritus, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 86 Water Street, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on several species of cetaceans worldwide.
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before September 8, 2015.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Courtney Smith or Amy Sloan, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant requests a permit to take multiple cetacean species during research activities focused on cetacean behavior, sound production and responses to sound in U.S. waters of the North Atlantic and North Pacific Ocean and international waters near the Mediterranean Sea and the Bahamas. See tables in the permit application for annual numbers of takes by species, stock and activity. Researchers would take animals by harassment during close approaches with vessels for behavioral observations and photo-identification; attachment of suction-cup or implantable tags and marking with zinc oxide; biopsy sampling; and playbacks of natural and simulated sound. Playback takes involve conducting sound playback experiments where subjects whose responses are being measured will be exposed to specific sounds in a carefully controlled manner using a source level <197.4 dB re 1 microPa at 1 m. Incidental harassment of other species in the area may occur during playbacks and vessel surveys. Skin samples would be imported from foreign field sites to the United States for genetic analyses. The requested permit would be valid for five years from issuance.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Notice; request for public comments.
In accordance with a requirement of Public Law 106-513 (16 U.S.C. 1441(b)), NOAA hereby gives public notice of the methods, formulas and rationale for the calculations it will use in order to assess fees associated with special use permits (SUPs).
Comments must be received on or before October 6, 2015.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NOS-2015-0066, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Matt Nichols, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, 1305 East West Highway (N/NMS2), Silver Spring, MD 20910, telephone (301) 713-7262, email
This
Congress first granted NOAA the authority to issue SUPs for conducting specific activities in national marine sanctuaries in the 1988 Amendments to the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (“NMSA”) (16 U.S.C. 1431
(d) Fees—
(1) Assessment and Collection—The Secretary may assess and collect fees for the conduct of any activity under a permit issued under this section.
(2) Amount—The amount of the fee under this subsection shall be the equal to the sum of—
(A) Costs incurred, or expected to be incurred, by the Secretary in issuing the permit;
(B) Costs incurred, or expected to be incurred, by the Secretary as a direct result of the conduct of the activity for which the permit is issued, including costs of monitoring the conduct of the activity; and
(C) An amount which represents the fair market value of the use of the sanctuary resource.
(3) Use of Fees—Amounts collected by the Secretary in the form of fees under this section may be used by the Secretary—
(A) For issuing and administering permits under this section; and
(B) For expenses of managing national marine sanctuaries.
(4) Waiver or Reduction of Fees—The Secretary may accept in-kind contributions in lieu of a fee under paragraph (2)(C), or waive or reduce any fee assessed under this subsection for any activity that does not derive profit from the access to or use of sanctuary resources.
The purpose of this notice is to propose standard procedures for assessing fee components associated with the application for and issuance of an SUP. SUPs are generally a small portion of the total number of permits issued by ONMS. However, with the addition of new SUP categories in 2013 and the current and potential expansion of the National Marine Sanctuary System, ONMS may see a rise in the number of applications submitted annually as well as an increase in the complexity of the proposed projects. Due to this, NOAA is asking for public comment on a set of proposed standard procedures for assessing SUP fees.
When an SUP is applied for by an interested party, and ultimately issued by ONMS, the total fee assessed to the applicant will be the sum of the three categories of fees provided for in section 310(d)(2) of the NMSA: administrative costs, implementation and monitoring costs, and fair market value.
NOAA proposes to assess a non-refundable $50 application fee for each SUP application submitted. Administrative costs spent reviewing the permit for sufficiency and suitability would be calculated by multiplying a regional labor rate, derived from the pay rates of ONMS permitting staff and averaged across ONMS regions, by the time spent by staff reviewing each permit application. NOAA will update the rate every year to account for staff changes as well as inflation. Such administrative costs could also include, but are not necessarily limited to, any environmental analyses and consultations associated with evaluating the permit application and issuing the permit; and equipment used in permit review and issuance (
NOAA may also charge a fee for costs associated with the implementation and monitoring of a permitted activity. Such costs would include staff time (calculated similarly to the labor rate described above), equipment use (including vessels or aircraft to oversee permit implementation), the expenses of monitoring the impacts of a permitted activity, and compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit.
To date, NOAA ONMS has assessed fair market value (FMV) fees assessed for an SUP on a case-by-case basis. The
1. The placement and recovery of objects associated with public or private events on non-living substrate of the submerged lands of any national marine sanctuary. The FMV for this activity would be $200 per event, based on fee values historically applied at national marine sanctuaries for this activity.
2. The placement and recovery of objects related to commercial filming. With this notice, NOAA would adopt the fee structure below from the National Park Service (NPS), which shares a similar mandate with ONMS to protect natural spaces of national importance. ONMS has determined NPS's broad evaluation methods to be sound and within the intent of ONMS SUPs for commercial filming.
The number of people refers to the cast and/or crew on location within the sanctuary for the commercial filming event, including pre- and post-production.
3. The continued presence of commercial submarine cables on or within the submerged lands of any national marine sanctuary. NOAA assesses FMV for submarine cables in national marine sanctuaries based on the findings of its 2002 study entitled “Fair Market Value Analysis for a Fiber Optic Cable Permit in National Marine Sanctuaries”(67 FR 55201). FMV for cables is assessed annually and adjusted according to the consumer price index. NOAA would continue using this methodology for assessing FMV fees for the continued presence of commercial submarine cables.
4. The disposal of cremated human remains (“cremains”)within or into any national marine sanctuary. NOAA would waive all fees, including the FMV fee, for private individuals disposing of cremains, but NOAA would assess a $50 per disposal FMV fee for commercial operators. This value is based on similar practices of state governments, such as the State of Washington, which assesses a $70 flat fee for a Cremated Human Remains Disposition Permit for disposal of cremains by airplane, boat, or other disposal methods for businesses.
5. Recreational diving near the USS
6. Fireworks displays. The FMV for fireworks would be a tiered structure based on the number of fireworks events conducted per calendar year. The fee schedule would be as follows: 1 event per calendar year—$100; 2-5 events per calendar year—$300; 6-10 events per calendar year—$500; 11-20 events per calendar year—$700.
7. The operation of aircraft below the minimum altitude in restricted zones of national marine sanctuaries. The FMV would be $500 per site/per day. This is an existing value that has been applied historically at national marine sanctuaries for this activity.
NOAA may accept in-kind contributions in lieu of a fee, or waive or reduce any fee assessed for any activity that does not derive profit from the access to or use of sanctuary resources. NOAA may consider the benefits of the activity to support the goals and objectives of the sanctuary as an in-kind contribution in lieu of a fee.
NOAA is requesting comments on the proposed methods for assessment of SUP fees.
NOAA has concluded that this action will not have a significant effect, individually or cumulatively, on the human environment. This action is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement in accordance with Section 6.03c3(i) of NOAA Administrative Order 216-6. Specifically, this action is a notice of an administrative and legal nature. Furthermore, individual permit actions by NOAA will be subject to additional case-by-case analysis, as required under NEPA, which will be completed as new permit applications are submitted for specific projects and activities.
NOAA also expects that many of these individual actions will also meet the criteria of one or more of the categorical exclusions described in NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 because SUPs cannot be issued for activities that are expected to result in any destruction of, injury to, or loss of any sanctuary resource. However, the SUP authority may at times be used to allow activities that may meet the Council on Environmental Quality's definition of the term “significant” despite the lack of apparent environmental impacts. In addition, NOAA may, in certain circumstances, combine its SUP authority with other regulatory authorities to allow activities not described above that may result in environmental impacts and thus require the preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. In these situations NOAA will ensure that the appropriate NEPA documentation is prepared prior to taking final action on a permit or making any irretrievable or irreversible commitment of agency resources.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permit amendment.
Notice is hereby given that to Michael Adkesson, D.V.M., Chicago Zoological Society, 3300 Golf Rd., Brookfield, IL 60527 has been issued a minor amendment to Scientific Research Permit No. 15471-01.
The amendment and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Jennifer Skidmore, (301) 427-8401.
The requested permit amendment has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
The original permit (No. 15741), issued on August 23, 2010 (75 FR 52721), and subsequent amendment (No. 15741-01; 76 FR 60808) authorizes the importation of biological samples from South American fur seals (
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to the Procurement List.
This action adds products and a service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Effective date September 7, 2015.
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 6/12/2015 (80 FR 33485-33489) and 6/26/2015 (80 FR 36773-36774), 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 furnish the products and service and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and service 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 service to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service 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 service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products and service are added to the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed Deletion from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to delete a service from the Procurement List previously provided by the nonprofit agency 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.
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 action.
The following service is proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before October 6, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by “FBOT Registration” or PRA collection 3038-0101 by any of the following methods:
• The Agency's Web site, at
•
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method.
Duane C. Andresen, Associate Director, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5492; email:
Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology;
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before October 6, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by “Rule 50.50 End-User Notification of Non-Cleared Swaps,” by any of the following methods:
• The Agency's Web site, at
•
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method.
Peter A. Kals, Division of Clearing and Risk, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418-5466; email:
Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the collection of information, the Commission invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology;
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before October 6, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by “Renewal of Collection Pertaining to Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements,” or Renewal 3038-0096, by any of the following methods:
• The Agency's Web site, at
• Mail: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail above.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Please submit your comments using only one method.
Thomas Guerin, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street NW., (202) 734-4194; email:
Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology;
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
44 U.S.C. 3501
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before October 6, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by “Conflict of Interest Policies and Procedures by Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants,” and Collection Number 3038-0079 by any of the following methods:
• The Agency's Web site, at
• Mail: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail above.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
Jacob Chachkin, Special Counsel, Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5496; email:
Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of 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;
You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
44 U.S.C. 3501
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (“ICR”) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 8, 2015.
Comments regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be submitted directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) in OMB, within 30 days of the notice's publication, by email at
Comments may also be mailed to: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581 or by Hand Deliver/Courier at the same address.
A copy of the supporting statements for the collection of information discussed above may be obtained by visiting
Christopher Hower, Special Counsel, Division of Clearing and Risk, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-6703; email:
Pursuant to these provisions, the Commission adopted § 1.71(d)(1) relating to FCMs and § 23.605(d)(1) relating to swap dealers and major swap participants. These regulations prohibit swap dealers and major swap participants from interfering or attempting to influence the decisions of affiliated FCMs with regard to the provision of clearing services and activities and prohibit FCMs from permitting them to do so. The Commission also adopted § 23.607 to prohibit swap dealers and major swap participants from adopting any process or taking any action that results in any unreasonable restraint on trade or imposes any material anticompetitive burden on trading or clearing, unless necessary or appropriate to achieve the purposes of the Act. The Commission adopted § 39.12(b)(2) requiring that derivatives clearing organization rules provide for the non-discriminatory clearing of swaps executed bilaterally or through an unaffiliated designated contract market or swap execution facility.
As discussed further below, the additional information collection burden arising from the proposed regulations primarily is restricted to the costs associated with the affected registrants' obligation to maintain records related to clearing documentation between the customer and the customer's clearing member.
The information collection obligations imposed by the regulations are necessary to implement certain provisions of the CEA, including ensuring that registrants exercise effective risk management and for the
44 U.S.C. 3501
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled AmeriCorps Child Care Program Information Collection for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Jennifer Veazey, at 202-606-6770 or email to
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, within September 8, 2015.
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the
(1) By fax to: 202-395-6974, Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service; or
(2) By email to:
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, 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;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose 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.
A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the
The information collection is requested of AmeriCorps Members who are applying for the AmeriCorps Child Care benefit (or in some cases, member of their households); information collected is used to determine a member's eligibility based upon statutory, regulatory, and program eligibility requirements. In addition, the information collection is requested of the child care providers to determine a child care provider's eligibility to provide the child care service.
Information is collected via hardcopy and electronically through an online application system.
CNCS seeks to renew the current AmeriCorps Child Care Application and add four new instruments: the AmeriCorps Member Application, Attendance Sheet, Member Update Form, and Statement of Work Activities.
The information collection will otherwise be used in the same manner as the existing application.
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 8, 2015.
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Department of Education.
Correction Notice.
On August 4, 2015 the U.S. Department of Education published a 30-day comment period notice in the
The Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management, hereby issues a correction notice as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), 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 October 6, 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 Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in
Department of Education (ED), Institute of Education Sciences (IES).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 8, 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 Christopher Boccanfuso, 202-219-1674.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of 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 is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Nittany Energy, 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
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 24, 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 Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities 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:
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.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
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. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.
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: September 1, 2015.
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
k. Description of Request: Article 409 requires Malacha Hydro Limited Partnership and Juniper Ridge Ranches, Inc. (licensees) to upgrade existing access to adjacent public lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including the construction of trail-head parking facilities, within five years from license issuance. The project license was issued on December 2, 1986. Since license issuance, the licensees have been unable to fulfill this license condition due to an on-going land exchange matter between the BLM and a private landowner, whose land is necessary to provide access to the trailhead parking facilities. The BLM land to be exchanged for the landowner's property is located within the Pit River Canyon Wilderness Study Area. The BLM cannot implement the land exchange until Congress acts to either designate these lands as wilderness or release the lands. Until Congress acts, BLM cannot complete the land exchange and the licensees cannot construct the required trailhead facilities. For these reasons, the licensees request a stay of five years for article 409 to allow Congress additional time to act on the Pit River Canyon Wilderness Study Area.
l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or
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 San Elizario Crossing Project involving construction and operation of specific border crossing facilities for the export of natural gas by Comanche Trail Pipeline, LLC (Comanche Trail) in El Paso County, Texas. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public interest.
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 September 2, 2015.
If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on May 29, 2015, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP15-503-000 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.
Comanche Trail 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 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 (CP15-503-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Comanche Trail proposes to construct and operate a new border crossing at the international boundary between the United States and Mexico in El Paso County, Texas. The San Elizario Crossing Project would consist of the construction of approximately 1,086 feet of FERC-jurisdictional 42-inch-diameter pipeline, installed using a horizontal directional drill (HDD) beneath the Rio Grande River near the City of San Elizario in El Paso, Texas. The new pipeline would have a maximum design export capacity of approximately 1.1 billion cubic feet per day, in order to transport natural gas to a new delivery interconnect in the vicinity of the City of San Isidro, in the State of Chihuahua, Mexico.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
The San Elizario Crossing Project has associated facilities that would be constructed in support of the project, but do not fall under the jurisdiction of the FERC. The proposed Comanche Trail intrastate pipeline facilities, consist of 196 miles of new 42-inch-diameter pipeline, multiple receipt and delivery metering stations, and other auxiliary facilities extending from Pecos County, Texas and terminating at the proposed FERC-jurisdictional project facilities in El Paso County. The intrastate facilities would be subject to the jurisdiction of the Texas Railroad Commission and would be non-jurisdictional to the FERC. In the EA, we will provide available descriptions of the non-jurisdictional facilities and include available environmental impact information under our analysis of cumulative impacts.
Construction of the San Elizario Crossing Project pipeline would affect a total of 4.2 acres of land in the United States, which includes temporary workspace for HDD construction, hydrostatic testing of the pipeline, and project access. Following construction, Comanche Trail would retain 1.3 acres as a 50-foot-wide permanent easement for operation of the FERC-jurisdictional pipeline, and the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses.
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 an Authorization. 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. We will 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 (SHPO), 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 proposed project.
When 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 available on the Commission's Web site 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 now 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
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Farm Credit Administration.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act, of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board).
The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on August 13, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business.
Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.
Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090. Submit attendance requests via email to
Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed to the public. Please send an email to
• July 8, 2015
• Mergers, Consolidations and Charter Amendments of Banks and Associations—Final Rule
• Office of Secondary Market Oversight Quarterly Report
* Session Closed-Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552b(c)(8) and (9).
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice advises interested persons that the Federal Communications Commission's (“FCC” or “Commission”) Downloadable Security Technology Advisory Committee (“DSTAC”) will hold a meeting on August 28, 2015. At the meeting, the committee will consider and debate a final DSTAC report and discuss any other DSTAC issues that may arise.
August 28, 2015.
Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-C305 (Commission Meeting Room), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
For additional information on this proceeding, contact Brendan Murray,
This meeting will be held on August 28, 2015, from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room of the Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-C305, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
The DSTAC is a Federal Advisory Committee that will “identify, report, and recommend performance objectives, technical capabilities, and technical standards of a not unduly burdensome, uniform, and technology- and platform-neutral software-based downloadable security system.”
The meeting on August 28, 2015, will be the seventh meeting of the DSTAC. The FCC will attempt to accommodate as many attendees as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. The Commission will provide audio and/or video coverage of the meeting over the Internet from the
Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to
Federal Election Commission.
Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at the conclusion of the open meeting, and Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.
Internal personnel rules and internal rules and practices.
Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Federal Election Commission
Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).
This meeting will be open to the public.
Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Signed:
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than August 24, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
1.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces 15 membership appointments to the Advisory Panel on Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests (the Panel) and the first meeting date for the Panel. The purpose of the Panel is to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) (the Secretary) and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) (the Administrator) on issues related to clinical diagnostic laboratory tests. The membership appointments are for 3 years. This notice also announces the first meeting date of the Panel on Wednesday, August 26, 2015.
The public may attend the meeting in-person, view via webcast, or listen via teleconference. Beginning Friday, August 7, 2015 and ending Friday, August 14, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. EDT, registration to attend the meeting in-person may be completed online at
• Name.
• Company name.
• Postal address.
• Email address.
Participants who do not plan to attend the meeting in-person on August 26, 2015, should not register. No registration is required for participants who plan to view the meeting via webcast or listen via teleconference.
We are interested in submitted comments or in presentations at the meeting concerning the issues described in the
For reconsidered and new test codes, presenters should address all of the following items:
• Reconsidered or new test code(s) and descriptor.
• Test purpose and method.
• Costs.
• Charges.
• A recommendation with rationale for one of the two methods (crosswalking or gapfilling) for determining payment for new tests, or a recommendation with rationale for changing the basis or payment amount, as applicable, for reconsidered tests.
Additionally, the presenters should provide the data on which their recommendations are based.
When registering, individuals who want to make a presentation must also specify for which new test codes they will be presenting comments. A confirmation will be sent upon receipt of the registration. Presenters must register by the date specified in the “Meeting Registration” section of this notice.
The meetings will be held in the Auditorium, CMS Central Office, 7500 Security Boulevard, Woodlawn, Maryland 21244-1850. Alternately, the public may either view the meetings via a webcast or listen by teleconference. During the scheduled meeting, webcasting is accessible online at
This meeting is open to the public. The onsite check-in for visitors will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. EDT on Wednesday, August 26, 2015, followed by opening remarks. Following the opening remarks, the Panel will hear oral presentations from the public for no more than 1 hour during two sessions. During the first session, registered persons from the public may present recommendations for crosswalks for new laboratory codes for the CY 2016 CLFS. During the second session, registered persons from the public may present recommendations for drugs of abuse testing and crosswalks. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to present is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, we may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. We will accept written presentations from those who were unable to present due to time constraints.
Glenn C. McGuirk, Designated Federal Official (DFO), Center for Medicare, Division of Ambulatory Services, CMS, 7500 Security Boulevard, Mail Stop C4-01-26, Baltimore, MD 21244, 410-786-5723, email
The Advisory Panel on Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests is
Section 1834A(f)(1) of the Act directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (Secretary) to consult with an expert outside advisory panel, established by the Secretary, composed of an appropriate selection of individuals with expertise in issues related to clinical diagnostic laboratory tests. Such individuals may include representatives of clinical laboratories, molecular pathologists, clinical laboratory researchers, and individuals with expertise in laboratory science or health economics.
The Panel will provide input and recommendations to the Secretary and the Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), on the following:
• The establishment of payment rates under section 1834A of the Act for new clinical diagnostic laboratory tests, including whether to use crosswalking or gapfilling processes to determine payment for a specific new test;
• The factors used in determining coverage and payment processes for new clinical diagnostic laboratory tests; and
• Other aspects of the new payment system under section 1834A of the Act.
The Panel charter provides that panel meetings will be held up to four times annually. The Panel will consist of up to 15 individuals and a Chair. The Panel Chair will facilitate meetings and the DFO or DFO's designee must be present at all meetings. Meetings will be open to the public except as determined otherwise by the Secretary or other official to whom the authority has been delegated in accordance with the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)) and FACA. Notice of all meetings will be published in the
In order to conduct the business of the Panel, a quorum is required. A quorum exists when a majority of currently appointed members is present at full Panel or subcommittee meetings or is participating in conference calls.
We published a notice in the
The Panel will consist of the following members and a Chair:
The first meeting (August 26, 2015) is open to the public; however, attendance is limited to space available. Priority will be given to those who pre-register and attendance may be limited based on the number of registrants and the space available.
Persons wishing to attend this meeting, which is located on federal property, must register by following the instructions in the “Meeting Registration” section of this notice. A confirmation email will be sent to the registrants shortly after completing the registration process.
The following are the security, building, and parking guidelines:
• Persons attending the meeting, including presenters, must be pre-registered and on the attendance list by the prescribed date.
• Individuals who are not pre-registered in advance may not be permitted to enter the building and may be unable to attend the meeting.
• Attendees must present a government-issued photo identification to the Federal Protective Service or Guard Service personnel before entering the building. Without a current, valid photo ID, persons may not be permitted entry to the building.
• Security measures include inspection of vehicles, inside and out, at the entrance to the grounds.
• All persons entering the building must pass through a metal detector.
• All items brought into CMS including personal items, for example, laptops and cell phones are subject to physical inspection.
• The public may enter the building 30 to 45 minutes before the meeting convenes each day.
• All visitors must be escorted in areas other than the lower and first-floor levels in the Central Building.
• The main-entrance guards will issue parking permits and instructions upon arrival at the building.
Individuals requiring special accommodations must include the request for these services during registration.
The Panel's recommendations will be posted to our Web site after the meeting.
The Secretary's Charter for the Advisory Panel on Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests is available on the CMS Web site at
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice that appeared in the
Lisa Granger, Office of Policy and Planning, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 3330, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9115.
In FR Doc. 2015-18782, appearing in the
On page 45661, in the third column, the first paragraph of the Comments section is corrected to read:
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at
Please note that your name, contact information, and other information identifying you will be posted on
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice that appeared in the
Lisa Granger, Office of Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 3330, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9115.
In FR Doc. 2015-18448, appearing on page 44973, in the
On page 44973, in the first column, in the headings section of the document, “[Docket No. FDA-2014-D-2537]” is corrected to read “FDA-2015-D-2537”.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
HHS gives notice of a decision to designate a class of employees from the Westinghouse Electric Corporation in Bloomfield, New Jersey, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000.
Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, NIOSH, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226-1938, Telephone 1-877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to
42 U.S.C. 7384q(b). 42 U.S.C. 7384
On July 31, 2015, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384
All Atomic Weapons Employees who worked at the facility owned by Westinghouse Electric Corp., in Bloomfield, New Jersey, during the period from February
This designation will become effective on August 27, 2015, unless Congress provides otherwise prior to the effective date. After this effective date, HHS will publish a notice in the
Indian Health Service, HHS.
Notice.
This Notice advises the public that the Indian Health Service (IHS) proposes the geographic boundaries of the Service Delivery Area (SDA) for the reaffirmed Koi Nation of Northern California, formerly known as the Lower Lake Rancheria, California (Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, 80
This notice is effective 30 days after date of publication in the
Comments may be mailed to Ms. Betty Gould, Regulations Officer, Indian Health Service, 801 Thompson Avenue, Suite 450, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Comments will be made available for public inspection at this address from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday-Friday beginning approximately two weeks after publication of this notice.
Mr. Carl Harper, Director, Office of Resource Access and Partnerships, Indian Health Service, 801 Thompson Avenue, Suite 360, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Telephone 301/443-2694 (This is not a toll free number).
The IHS currently provides services under regulations in effect on September 15, 1987 and IHS republished at 42 CFR part 136, subparts A through C. Many of the newly recognized/restored/reaffirmed Tribes do not have reservations and either Congress has legislatively designated counties to serve as SDAs or the Director, IHS, exercised reasonable administrative discretion to designate SDAs to effectuate the intent of Congress for these Tribes. The Director, IHS, published notice of the establishment of SDAs in the June 21, 2007 FR Notice (72 FR 34262-01). The SDAs function as PRC SDAs for the purposes of operating a PRC program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Pub. L. 93-638. Thus, the PRC SDA list incorporates the SDAs that operate as PRC SDAs for newly recognized/restored/reaffirmed Tribes. At 42 CFR part 136 Subpart C, a PRC SDA is defined as the geographic area within which PRC will be made available by the IHS to members of an identified Indian community who reside in the area. Residence within a PRC SDA by a person who is within the scope of the Indian health program, as set forth in 42 CFR 136.12 creates no legal entitlement to PRC but only potential eligibility for services. Services needed but not available at an IHS/Tribal facility are provided under the PRC program depending on the availability of funds, the person's relative medical priority, and the actual availability and accessibility of alternate resources in accordance with the regulations.
As applicable to the Tribes, these regulations provide that, unless otherwise designated, a PRC SDA shall consist of a county which includes all or part of a reservation and any county or counties which have a common boundary with the reservation (42 CFR 136.22(a)(6) (2014). On December 29, 2000 the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs reaffirmed the Federal recognition of the Koi Nation (Tribe), formerly known as the Lower Lake Rancheria, and the government-to-government relationship between the United States and the Tribe. The Koi Nation is located in Lake and Sonoma Counties in the State of California. After consultation with the Tribal governing body, the SDA for the Tribe was agreed upon. The purpose of this FR notice is to notify the public that the IHS now administratively designates Lake and Sonoma Counties as the Koi Nation's SDA.
Under 42 CFR 136.23 those otherwise eligible Indians who do not reside on a reservation but reside within a PRC SDA must be either members of the Tribe or maintain close economic and social ties with the Tribe. In this case, the Tribe estimated the eligible user population to be 72 enrolled Koi Nation members who are actively involved with the Tribe.
The Koi Nation's Tribal office is located in the city of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, in the State of California. A significant number of the Koi Nation SDA eligible user population also resides in Lake County in the State of California. There are other Federally recognized Tribes in Lake and Sonoma Counties and both counties are currently part of other Tribes' PRC SDA. The Koi Nation only seeks to provide health care services to its members who reside in Lake and Sonoma Counties.
This notice does not contain reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to prior approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.
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 Eye 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/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications and/or contract proposals, 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 the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
The National Toxicology Program (NTP) Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM) announces the workshop “Alternative Approaches for Identifying Acute Systemic Toxicity: Moving from Research to Regulatory Testing.” Workshop attendees will discuss the state of the science of alternative approaches for identifying acute systemic toxicity and explore ways to facilitate their implementation.
Meeting Location: Porter Neuroscience Conference Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892.
Meeting Web page: The preliminary agenda, registration, and other meeting materials are at
Dr. Warren S. Casey, Director, NICEATM; email:
Acute systemic toxicity tests, which evaluate the propensity of a substance to produce lethality when administered orally, dermally, or by inhalation, are the most commonly performed type of safety test worldwide. This workshop will explore and discuss alternative approaches that could replace, reduce, or refine the use of animals for identifying chemicals that may cause acute systemic toxicity.
During the workshop, participants will (1) review the regulatory guidelines to define when and how acute systemic toxicity data are used; (2) review the science of alternative approaches for identifying acute systemic toxicity, including mechanism-based models,
A preliminary agenda and additional information are available at
This meeting is open to the public, free of charge, with attendance limited only by available meeting space. Individuals who plan to attend should register at
Visitor and security information for visitors to NIH is available at
NICEATM conducts data analyses, workshops, independent validation studies, and other activities to assess new, revised, and alternative test methods and strategies. NICEATM also provides support for the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM). The ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 285
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given for the meeting of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention National Advisory Council (CSAP NAC) on August 26, 2015.
The Council was established to advise the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); the Administrator, SAMHSA; and Center Director, CSAP concerning matters relating to the activities carried out by and through the Center and the policies respecting such activities.
The meeting will be open to the public and will include discussion of the alignment of substance abuse and mental illness prevention within the context of overall healthcare, and CSAP program developments.
The meeting will be held in Rockville, Maryland. Attendance by the public will be limited to the space available. Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the Council. Written submissions should be forwarded to the contact person on or before one week prior to the meeting. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled at the conclusion of the meeting. Individuals interested in making oral presentations are encouraged to notify the contact on or before one week prior to the meeting. Five minutes will be allotted for each presentation.
To attend onsite, submit written or brief oral comments, or request special accommodations for persons with disabilities, please register at the SAMHSA Committees' Web site,
Substantive program information may be obtained after the meeting by accessing the SAMHSA Committee Web site,
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) National Advisory Council will meet on August 12, 2015, 2 p.m.-3 p.m., via teleconference.
The meeting will include the review, discussion, and evaluation of grant applications reviewed by the Initial Review Group, and involve an examination of confidential financial and business information as well as personal information concerning the applicants. Therefore, these meetings will be closed to the public as determined by the SAMHSA Administrator, in accordance with Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (c)(6) and (c)(9)(B); and 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Section 10(d).
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Advisory Committee for Women's Services (ACWS) on August 26, 2015.
The meeting will include discussions on behavioral health for Pregnant and Postpartum Women (PPW) and their families; disparities in behavioral health services for women; and a conversation with the SAMHSA Administrator.
The meeting is open to the public and will be held at SAMHSA, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857, in the VTC Room. Attendance by the public will be limited to space available. Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions should be forwarded to the contact person (below) on or before August 14, 2015. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled at the conclusion of the meeting. Individuals interested in making oral presentations are encouraged to notify the contact person on or before August 14, 2015. Five minutes will be allotted for each presentation.
The meeting may be accesed via telephone. To attend on site, obtain the call-in number and access code, submit written or brief oral comments, or request special accommodations for persons with disabilities, please register on-line at
Substantive meeting information and a roster of Committee members may be obtained either by accessing the SAMHSA Committees' Web site
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas (FEMA-4223-DR), dated May 29, 2015, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 29, 2015.
Red River County for Individual Assistance.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New Jersey (FEMA-4231-DR), dated July 22, 2015, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated July 22, 2015, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of New Jersey resulting from a severe storm on June 23, 2015, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Seamus K. Leary, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of New Jersey have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Gloucester Counties for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of New Jersey are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas (FEMA-4223-DR), dated May 29, 2015, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 29, 2015.
Shelby County for Individual Assistance.
Hood, Madison, and Wharton Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance).
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4228-DR), dated July 13, 2015, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of July 13, 2015.
Rapides Parish for Public Assistance.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-4223-DR), dated May 29, 2015, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period is now May 4, 2015, through and including June 22, 2015.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas (FEMA-4223-DR), dated May 29, 2015, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 29, 2015.
Austin, Brown, Delta, DeWitt, Gonzales, Hopkins, Jack, Jones, Orange, Robertson, San Augustine, Starr, Tarrant, Throckmorton, and Waller Counties for Public Assistance.
Ellis, Red River, and Wichita Counties for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance).
National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.
Quarterly Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council membership update.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the establishment of the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory
Larry May, Alternate Designated Federal Officer, Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council, Sector Outreach and Programs Division, Office of Infrastructure Protection, National Protection and Programs Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane, Mail Stop 0607, Arlington, VA 20598-0607; telephone: (703) 603-5070; email:
(i) Critical Infrastructure owner and operator members of a DHS-recognized SCC, including their representative trade associations or equivalent organization members of a SCC as determined by the SCC.
(ii) Federal, state, local, and tribal governmental entities comprising the members of the GCC for each sector, including their representative organizations; members of the State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Government Coordinating Council; and representatives of other federal agencies with responsibility for critical infrastructure activities.
CIPAC membership is organizational. Multiple individuals may participate in CIPAC activities on behalf of a member organization.
Science and Technology Directorate, DHS.
Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is seeking nominations and expressions of interest for membership on the Project 25 Compliance Assessment Program Advisory Panel (P25 CAP AP). The activities of the P25 CAP AP are expected to commence in fall 2015.
P25 is a standard which enables interoperability among digital two-way land mobile radio communications products created by and for public safety professionals. P25 CAP is a formal, independent process, created by DHS and operated in collaboration with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), for ensuring that communications equipment that is declared by the supplier to be P25 compliant, in fact, is tested against the standards with publicly published results. The P25 CAP AP would provide a resource by which DHS could gain insight into the collective interest of organizations that procure P25-compliant equipment and a resource in DHS's continuing to establish the policies of the P25 CAP along with assisting the DHS Office for Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC) in the administration of the Program.
All responses must be received within 30 days from the date of this notice at the address listed below.
Expressions of interest and nominations should be submitted to
• Instructions: All submissions received must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and DHS-2015-0041, the docket number for this action.
John Merrill, Director, Office for Interoperability and Compatibility, Science and Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland Security, 202-254-5604 (O),
TIA-102/Project 25 (P25) is a standards development process for the design, manufacture, and evaluation of interoperable digital two-way land mobile radio communications products created by and for public safety professionals. The goal of P25 is to specify formal standards for interfaces and features between the various components of a land mobile radio system commonly used by public safety agencies in portable handheld and mobile vehicle-mounted devices. The P25 standard enables interoperability among different suppliers' products.
P25 CAP was developed by DHS and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to test equipment designed to comply with P25 standards. The program provides public safety agencies with evidence that the communications equipment they are purchasing is tested against and complies with the P25 standards for performance, conformance, and interoperability.
P25 CAP is a voluntary system that provides a mechanism for the recognition of testing laboratories based on internationally accepted standards. It identifies competent P25 CAP testing laboratories for DHS-recognition through assessments by DHS-authorized accreditation bodies and promotes the acceptance of compliant test results from these laboratories.
As a voluntary program, P25 CAP allows suppliers to publicly attest to their products' compliance with a selected group of requirements through Summary Test Report (STR) and Supplier's Declaration of Compliance (SDOC) documents based on the Detailed Test Report (DTR) from the DHS-recognized laboratory (ies) that performed the product testing. In turn, P25 CAP makes these documents available to the first response community to inform their purchasing decisions via the
The Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) of the DHS is forming the P25 CAP Advisory Panel to provide S&T with the views of active local, state, tribal, territorial and Federal government officials who use or whose offices use portable handheld and mobile vehicle-mounted radios. Those government officials selected to participate in the P25 CAP AP will be selected based on their experience with the management and procurement of land mobile radio systems or knowledge of conformity assessment programs and methods. OIC will select candidates in light of the desire to balance viewpoints required to effectively address P25 CAP issues under consideration. OIC is particularly interested in receiving nominations and expressions of interest from individuals in the following categories:
• State, tribal, territorial, or local government agencies and organizations with expertise in communications issues and technologies.
• Federal government agencies with expertise in communications or homeland security matters.
While OIC can call for a meeting of the P25 CAP AP as it deems necessary and appropriate, for member commitment and planning purposes, it is anticipated that the P25 CAP AP will meet approximately 3-4 times annually in their role of providing guidance and support to the P25 CAP.
Those selected to serve on the P25 CAP AP will be required to sign a gratuitous services agreement and will not be paid or reimbursed for their participation; however, DHS S&T will reimburse the travel expenses associated with the participation of non-Federal members in accordance with Federal Travel Regulations. OIC reserves the right to select primary and alternate members to the P25 CAP AP for terms appropriate for the accomplishment of the Board's mission. Members serve at the pleasure of the OIC Director.
Registered lobbyists pursuant to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 are not eligible for membership on the P25 CAP AP and will not be considered.
The duties of the P25 CAP AP will include providing recommendations of its individual members to OIC regarding actions and steps OIC could take to promote the P25 CAP. The duties of the P25 CAP AP may include but are not limited to its members reviewing, commenting on, and advising on:
a. The laboratory component of the P25 CAP under established, documented laboratory recognition guidelines.
b. Proposed Compliance Assessment Bulletins (CABs).
c. Proposed updates to previously approved CABs, as Notices of Proposed CABs, to enable comment and input on the proposed CAB modifications.
d. OIC updates to existing test documents or establishing new test documents for new types of P25 equipment.
e. Best practices associated with improvement of the policies and procedures by which the P25 CAP operates.
f. Existing test documents including but not limited to Supplier Declarations of Compliance (SDOCs) and Summary Test Reports (STRs) posted on the
g. Proposed P25 user input for improving functionality through the standards-making process.
Nominations and expressions of interest shall be received by OIC no later than 30 days from the date of this notice at the address listed above (
• A cover letter that highlights a history of proven leadership within the public safety community including, if applicable, a description of prior experience with law enforcement, fire response, emergency medical services, emergency communications, National Guard, or other first responder roles and how the use of communications in those roles qualifies the nominee to participate on the P25 CAP AP.
• Name, title, and organization of the nominee.
• A resume summarizing the nominee's contact information (including the mailing address, phone number, facsimile number, and email address), qualifications, and expertise to explain why the nominee should be appointed to the P25 CAP AP.
• The resume must demonstrate a minimum of ten years (10) years of experience directly using P25 systems in an operational environment in support of established public safety communications or from a system implementer/administrator perspective; a bachelor's or associate degree with an emphasis in communications and engineering may be substituted for three (3) years, a master's/professional certification for seven (7) years, and a Ph.D. for ten (10) years of the requirement.
• The resume must discuss the nominee's familiarity with the current P25 CAP, including documents that are integral to the process such as the SDOCs, STRs, and CABs referenced in this notice.
• A letter from the nominee's supervisor indicating the nominee's agency's support for the nominee to participate on the P25 CAP AP.
• Disclosure of Federal boards, commissions, committees, task forces, or work groups on which the nominee currently serves or has served within the past 12 months.
• A statement confirming that the nominee is not registered as a lobbyist pursuant to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.
Additional information can be found as follows:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402-3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.
In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in
Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, and suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.
Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to: Ms. Theresa M. Ritta, Chief Real Property Branch, the Department of Health and Human Services, Room 5B-17, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (301) 443-2265 (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.
For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.
For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.
Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Ann Marie Oliva at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the
For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
This notice announces changes in the interest rates to be paid on debentures issued with respect to a loan or mortgage insured by the Federal Housing Administration under the provisions of the National Housing Act (the Act). The interest rate for debentures issued under section 221(g)(4) of the Act during the 6-month period beginning July 1, 2015, is 2
Yong Sun, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 5148, Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone (202) 402-4778 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
Section 224 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715o) provides that debentures issued under the Act with respect to an insured loan or mortgage (except for debentures issued pursuant to section 221(g)(4) of the Act) will bear interest at the rate in effect on the date the commitment to insure the loan or mortgage was issued, or the date the loan or mortgage was endorsed (or initially endorsed if there are two or more endorsements) for insurance, whichever rate is higher. This provision is implemented in HUD's regulations at 24 CFR 203.405, 203.479, 207.259(e)(6), and 220.830. These regulatory provisions state that the applicable rates of interest will be published twice each year as a notice in the
Section 224 further provides that the interest rate on these debentures will be set from time to time by the Secretary of HUD, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, in an amount not in excess of the annual interest rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to a statutory formula based on the average yield of all outstanding marketable Treasury obligations of maturities of 15 or more years.
The Secretary of the Treasury (1) has determined, in accordance with the provisions of section 224, that the statutory maximum interest rate for the period beginning July 1, 2015, is 2
For convenience of reference, HUD is publishing the following chart of debenture interest rates applicable to mortgages committed or endorsed since January 1, 1980:
Section 215 of Division G, Title II of Public Law 108-199, enacted January 23, 2004 (HUD's 2004 Appropriations Act) amended section 224 of the Act, to change the debenture interest rate for purposes of calculating certain insurance claim payments made in cash. Therefore, for all claims paid in cash on mortgages insured under section 203 or 234 of the National Housing Act and endorsed for insurance after January 23, 2004, the debenture interest rate will be the monthly average yield, for the month in which the default on the mortgage occurred, on United States Treasury Securities adjusted to a constant maturity of 10 years, as found in Federal Reserve Statistical Release H-
Section 221(g)(4) of the Act provides that debentures issued pursuant to that paragraph (with respect to the assignment of an insured mortgage to the Secretary) will bear interest at the “going Federal rate” in effect at the time the debentures are issued. The term “going Federal rate” is defined to mean the interest rate that the Secretary of the Treasury determines, pursuant to a statutory formula based on the average yield on all outstanding marketable Treasury obligations of 8- to 12-year maturities, for the 6-month periods of January through June and July through December of each year. Section 221(g)(4) is implemented in the HUD regulations at 24 CFR 221.255 and 24 CFR 221.790.
The Secretary of the Treasury has determined that the interest rate to be borne by debentures issued pursuant to section 221(g)(4) during the 6-month period beginning July 1, 2015, is 2
The subject matter of this notice falls within the categorical exemption from HUD's environmental clearance procedures set forth in 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6). For that reason, no environmental finding has been prepared for this notice.
Sections 211, 221, 224, National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1715b, 1715l, 1715o; Section 7(d), Department of HUD Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application for an enhancement of survival permit (EOS) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The permit application includes a draft candidate conservation agreement with assurances (CCAA) between Smith Creek Ranch LTD and the Service for the greater sage-grouse on private rangelands in Churchill and Lander Counties, Nevada. We invite comments from all interested parties on the application, including the draft CCAA, and a draft environmental action statement (EAS) prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
To ensure consideration, written comments must be received from interested parties no later than September 8, 2015.
To request further information or submit written comments, please use one of the following methods, and note that your information request or comments are in reference to the Smith Creek Ranch LTD CCAA.
Edward D. Koch, Field Supervisor, Reno Fish and Wildlife Office (see
We have received an application from Smith Creek Ranch LTD for an EOS permit under the ESA. The permit application includes a CCAA between the applicant and the Service for the greater sage-grouse (
Private and other non-Federal property owners are encouraged to enter into CCAAs, in which they voluntarily undertake management activities on their properties to enhance, restore, or maintain habitat benefiting species that are proposed for listing under the ESA, candidates for listing, or species that may become candidates or proposed for listing. Through a CCAA and its associated EOS permit, the Service provides assurances to property owners that they will not be subjected to increased land use restrictions if the covered species become listed under the ESA in the future, provided the CCAA is being properly implemented and the EOS permit conditions are met. Application requirements and issuance criteria for EOS permits for CCAAs are found in the Code of Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.22(d) and 17.32 (d), respectively. See also our joint policy on CCAAs, which we published in the
On March 23, 2010, the Service published a 12-month finding in the
The Service proposes to approve the CCAA and to issue an EOS permit, both with a term of 20 years, to Smith Creek Ranch LTD for incidental take of greater sage-grouse caused by covered activities, if permit issuance criteria are met. The area to be addressed under this proposed CCAA (
Consistent with our CCAA Policy (64 FR 32726), the conservation goal of the proposed CCAA is to encourage enhancement and protection of greater sage-grouse habitat on non-Federal lands by either maintaining or modifying existing land uses so that they are consistent with the conservation needs of the greater sage-grouse. We can meet this conservation goal with the use of a CCAA by giving non-Federal landowners incentives to implement conservation measures, primarily through regulatory certainty concerning land-use restrictions that might otherwise apply should the greater sage-grouse become listed under the ESA.
We have made a preliminary determination that the proposed CCAA and permit issuance are eligible for categorical exclusion under NEPA. The basis for our preliminary determination is contained in an EAS, which is available for public review (see
We request data, comments, new information, or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, Tribes, industry, or any other interested party on this notice. We particularly seek comments on the following: (1) Biological information concerning the greater sage-grouse; (2) relevant data concerning this species; (3) additional information concerning the range, distribution, population size, and population trends of the greater sage-grouse; (4) current or planned activities in the covered area and their possible impacts on the species; (5) identification of any other environmental issues that should be considered with regard to the proposed permit action; and (6) information regarding the adequacy of the CCAA pursuant to the requirements for permits at 50 CFR parts 13 and 17.
All comments and materials we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifiable information (PII) in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your PII—may be made publically available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your PII from public review, we cannot guarantee we will be able to do so. Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the draft EAS, will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at our Reno Fish and Wildlife Office (see
We will evaluate the permit application, associated documents, and comments we receive to determine whether the permit application meets the requirements of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA and NEPA and their implementing regulations. We will also evaluate whether issuance of an EOS permit would comply with section 7 of the ESA by conducting an intra-Service section 7 consultation on the proposed permit action. If we determine that all requirements are met, we will sign the proposed CCAA and issue an EOS permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA to Smith Creek Ranch LTD for incidental take of greater sage-grouse that is likely to occur with implementation of the CCAA. We will not make our final decision until after the end of the 30-day public comment period, and we will fully consider all comments we receive during the public comment period.
We provide this notice in accordance with the requirements of section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Interior.
Notice of a revision of a currently approved information collection.
We (the U.S. Geological Survey) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This collection is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2016.
To ensure that your comments are considered, we must receive them on or before October 6, 2015.
You may submit comments on this information collection to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS 807, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); (703) 648-7197 (fax); or
Jake Weltzin, U.S. Geological Survey, 1955 East 6th Street, Tucson, AZ 85721 (mail); (520) 626-3821 (phone); or
The USA-NPN is a program sponsored by the USGS that uses
We are soliciting comments as to: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) how to minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that the comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your personal mailing address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personally identifiable information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Interior.
Notice of a new information collection.
We (the U.S. Geological Survey) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC.
To ensure that your comments are considered, we must receive them on or before October 6, 2015.
You may submit comments on this information collection to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS 807, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); (703) 648-7197 (fax); or
Brigitta Urban-Mathieux, Federal Geographic Data Committee Office of the Secretariat, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Mail Stop 590, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); 703-648-5175 (phone); or
Respondents are submitting proposals to acquire funding for projects to help build the infrastructure necessary for the geospatial data community to effectively discover, access, share, manage, and use digital geographic data. The National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) consists of the technologies, policies, organizations, and people necessary to promote cost-effective production, and the ready availability and greater utilization of geospatial data among a variety of sectors, disciplines, and communities. Specific NSDI areas of emphasis include: Metadata
We will issue a request for proposal (RFP) via Grant.gov. The incoming proposals will be reviewed and scored based on the responses to the questions in the RFP. Responses are voluntary. No questions of a “sensitive” nature are asked. We will protect information from respondents considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and it's implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2), and under regulations at 30 CFR 250.197, “Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection.” We intend to release the project abstracts and primary investigators for awarded/funded projects only.
We are soliciting comments as to: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) how to minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Please note that the comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your personal mailing address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personally identifiable information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The plats of survey of lands described below are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, Sacramento, California.
September 8, 2015.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the California State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, California 95825, upon required payment.
Chief, Branch of Geographic Services, Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, 2800 Cottage Way W-1623, Sacramento, California 95825, (916) 978-4310. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-(800)-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
A person or party who wishes to protest a survey must file a notice that they wish to protest with the Chief, Branch of Geographic Services. A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest and must be filed with the Chief, Branch of Geographic Services within thirty days after the protest is filed. If a protest against the survey is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved. 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.
T. 11 N., R. 3 E., supplemental plat of the S
T. 23 N., R. 13 W., metes-and-bounds survey of lots in section 36, accepted July 21, 2015.
T. 17 S., R. 8 E., dependent resurvey and subdivision of section 6, accepted July 28, 2015.
T. 9 N., R. 23 E., supplemental plat of the NW
T. 9 S., R. 14 E., supplemental plat of the SW
T. 2 N., R. 9 E., dependent resurvey and subdivision of section 34, accepted July 21, 2015.
43 U.S.C., Chapter 3.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the West of Devers Upgrade Project (WOD UP) and by this notice is announcing the opening of the comment period. This document is also an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
To ensure comments will be considered, the BLM must receive written comments on the West of Devers Upgrade Project Draft Joint EIR/EIS within 45 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability in the
You may submit comments related to the WOD UP by any of the following methods:
• Web site:
• Email:
• Fax: 760-833-7199.
• Mail: WOD Project Manager; BLM Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office, 1201 Bird Center Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262
Copies of the Draft Joint EIR/EIS for the WOD UP are available in the Palm Springs/South Coast Field Office at the above address and the BLM California Desert District Office, 22835 Calle San Juan De Los Lagos, Moreno Valley, CA 92553.
Frank McMenimen, Project Manager, telephone 760-833-7150; address 1201 Bird Center Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262; email
Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes to upgrade and adjust the routes of the following existing 220 kV transmission lines within SCE's existing West of Devers right-of-way corridor in incorporated and unincorporated areas of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, including: Devers-El Casco, El Casco-San Bernardino, Devers-San Bernardino, Devers-Vista No. 1 and No. 2, Etiwanda-San Bernardino, and San Bernardino-Vista.
Of the overall 48-mile length of the transmission corridor, approximately 6 miles would cross Trust Lands (Reservation) of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and approximately 1 mile is on BLM- administered public lands. The BLM lands are located east of the City of Banning and west of the City of Desert Hot Springs in Riverside County.
In addition to the transmission line improvements, substation equipment at Devers, El Casco, Etiwanda, San Bernardino, Timoteo and Tennessee and Vista Substations would be upgraded to accommodate the project changes to transmission and subtransmission systems. Construction of the WOD UP would facilitate the full deliverability of new renewable energy generation resources now being developed in eastern Riverside County, including the BLM's Riverside East Solar Energy Zone, into the Los Angeles area.
The WOD UP would facilitate progress towards meeting California's Renewable Portfolio Standard goals requiring utilities to produce 33 percent of their electricity sales from renewable energy sources by 2020. Utility-scale solar energy development in eastern Riverside County plays an important role in meeting California's renewable energy goals, allowing for immediate and sizeable deployment, driving costs down and taking advantage of the State's best renewable energy resources. Additionally, these upgrades are required to comply with transmission reliability standards and will support integration of small scale electricity generation.
In addition to the Proposed Project, the WOD UP Draft Joint EIR/EIS considers three project alternatives and a No Action/No Project alternative, as well as connected actions enabled by the project. The first alternative moves towers away from residences. The second alternative would place portions of the line underground. The third alternative would use fewer towers, and would not remove all the old towers and poles, leaving future expansion opportunities. Based on the small amount of BLM lands involved, and because of the lack of apparent resource conflicts for the BLM among the alternatives, the BLM has not identified a preferred alternative. The BLM will identify a preferred alternative for the Final EIS based on feedback on the Draft EIS from the public and cooperating agencies.
During the public scoping process, BLM personnel, Federal, State, local agencies, and other stakeholders identified issues for the EIR/EIS, including aesthetics/visual effects; conflicts with existing land uses; social and economic effects, including property values; fire, electric and magnetic fields, and other hazards; construction-related impacts from dust and traffic; slope stability; effects on biological resources; and possible curtailment of electric generation during construction.
Please note that public comments and information submitted including names, street addresses, and email addresses of persons who submit comments will be available for public review and disclosure at the above address during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays.
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.
40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meetings.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will hold a meeting in Nevada, in September 2015. The meeting is open to the public.
September 17 and 18 at the BLM Winnemucca, Nevada District. A meeting will be held on Thursday, September 17, at the Winnemucca BLM District Office (5100 East Winnemucca Blvd.) in Winnemucca, Nevada. Approximate meeting times are 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. However, meetings could end earlier if discussions and presentations conclude before 4 p.m. The meeting will include a public comment period at approximately 11:30 a.m. A field trip will be held on Friday, September 18 within the Winnemucca BLM District.
Lisa Ross, Public Affairs Specialist, Carson City District Office, 5665 Morgan Mill Road, Carson City, NV 89701, telephone: (775) 885-6107, email:
The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Nevada. Topics for discussion at the meeting will include, but are not limited to:
• September 17-18 (Carson City)—landscape vegetative management, rangeland health assessments, Fire Invasive Assessment Tool (FIAT), sage grouse, drought, and fire restoration.
Managers' reports of district office activities will be distributed at each meeting. The Council may raise other topics at the meetings.
Final agendas will be posted on-line at the BLM Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin RAC Web site at
Individuals who need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, or who wish to receive a copy of each agenda, may contact Lisa Ross no later than 10 days prior to each meeting.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Reclamation has prepared the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation (SLWRI). The purpose of the proposed action is to improve operational flexibility of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta watershed system by modifying the existing Shasta Dam and Reservoir to meet specified objectives. Primary objectives are to increase the survival of anadromous fish populations in the upper Sacramento River and increase water supply and water supply reliability for agricultural, municipal and industrial, and environmental purposes. Secondary planning objectives are to: Conserve, restore, and enhance ecosystem resources in the primary study area; reduce flood damage along the Sacramento River; develop additional hydropower generation capabilities at Shasta Dam; maintain and increase recreation opportunities at Shasta Lake; and maintain or improve water quality conditions in the Sacramento River downstream from Shasta Dam and in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The companion Final Feasibility Report is also available, and together, these documents are provided to inform the Congress and the public of the technical studies conducted to date.
Ultimately, if the project is authorized by Congress, the Secretary may issue a Record of Decision (ROD) at least 30 days after release of the FEIS. The ROD will state the action that will be implemented, consistent with Congressional authorization, and will discuss all factors leading to the decision.
The FEIS may be viewed at the SLWRI Web site at
Ms. Katrina Chow, Reclamation Project Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825; 916-978-5067, TDD 916-978-5608; via fax at 916-978-5094; or email to
A Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was published in the
Shasta Dam was completed in 1945 to serve multiple purposes, including flood control; water supply for agricultural, municipal and industrial, and environmental purposes; and hydropower generation. In addition, extensive recreational opportunities in and around Shasta Lake significantly contribute to the regional economy.
Authorization for the investigation comes from Public Law (Pub. L.) 96-375, 1980, directing the Secretary of the Interior to engage in feasibility studies related to enlarging Shasta Dam and Reservoir. Related legislation includes Title 34 of Pub. L. 102-575 (the Central Valley Project Improvement Act) and Pub. L. 108-361, the CALFED Bay-Delta Authorization Act. In addition, enlargement of Shasta Dam was identified in the CALFED Programmatic Environmental Impact Report/Statement and Record of Decision.
With the release of the FEIS, the Final Feasibility Report and FEIS will be provided to Congress. The following
• Primary Planning objectives: (1) Increase the survival of anadromous fish populations in the Sacramento River, primarily upstream from the Red Bluff Diversion Dam, and (2) increase water supply and water supply reliability for agricultural, municipal and industrial, and environmental purposes to help meet future water demands, with a focus on enlarging Shasta Dam and Reservoir. Action alternatives were formulated to address these primary planning objectives.
• Secondary Planning Objectives. The following actions, operations, or features are included to the extent possible and consistent with the primary planning objectives: (1) Conserve, restore, and enhance ecosystem resources in the Shasta Lake area and along the upper Sacramento River, (2) reduce flood damage along the Sacramento River, (3) develop additional hydropower generation capabilities at Shasta Dam, (4) maintain and increase recreation opportunities at Shasta Lake, and (5) maintain or improve water quality conditions in the Sacramento River downstream from Shasta Dam and in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
The FEIS documents a reasonable range of alternatives and evaluates the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of alternative plans. Evaluation of six alternatives is documented in the FEIS, including a No-Action Alternative and five action alternatives. The FEIS displays the potential project-related impacts, including the effects of project construction and operation on the following resource areas: Geology, air quality, hydrology, water quality, noise, hazards and hazardous materials, important agricultural lands, fish, vegetation and wildlife, cultural resources, Indian Trust Assets, socioeconomics, land use, recreation, visual resources, traffic and circulation, utilities, public services, power and energy, environmental justice, and wild and scenic rivers; and identifies the Preferred Alternative, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.
Potential project-related impacts include the construction-related effects of the dam enlargement, reservoir area relocations, and other alternative features; water operations-related effects within the reservoir area (
Copies of the FEIS and Final Feasibility Report are available for public review at the following locations:
• Bureau of Reclamation, Regional Library, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825.
• Bureau of Reclamation, Northern California Area Office, 16349 Shasta Dam Boulevard, Shasta Lake, CA 96019.
• Natural Resources Library, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Main Interior Building, Washington, DC 20240.
• Shasta County Main Library, 1855 Shasta Street, Redding, CA 96001.
Copies of the FEIS and Final Feasibility Report are available on-line via the SLWRI Web site, at:
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in any correspondence, you should be aware that your entire correspondence—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your correspondence to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
United States International Trade Commission.
Institution of investigation and scheduling of public hearing.
The Commission has instituted investigation No. 332-555, Economic Impact of Trade Agreements Implemented Under Trade Authorities Procedures, 2016 Report, for the purpose of preparing the first of two reports required by section 105(f)(2) of the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (Public Law 114-26). Section 105(f)(2) requires that the Commission submit to the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance two reports, one by June 29, 2016, and a second by June 29, 2020, on the economic impact on the United States of all trade agreements with respect to which Congress has enacted an implementing bill under trade authorities procedures since January 1, 1984.
All Commission offices, including the Commission's hearing rooms, are located in the United States International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. All written submissions should be addressed to the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Project Leaders Tamar Khachaturian (202-205-3299 or
(2) REPORT ON IMPACT OF TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY.— Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and not later than 5 years thereafter, the United States International Trade Commission shall submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a report on the economic impact on the United States of all trade agreements with respect to which Congress has enacted an implementing bill under trade authorities procedures since January 1, 1984.
The Commission will submit its first report by June 29, 2016, and the second report by June 29, 2020. This notice pertains only to the procedures relating to preparation of the first report.
For purposes of this report the Commission considers the trade agreements covered to include the Uruguay Round Agreements, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA—Canada and Mexico), and U.S. free trade agreements (FTAs) with Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic and five Central American countries (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua), Israel, Jordan, Korea, Morocco, Oman, Panama, Peru, and Singapore.
The Commission has instituted an investigation under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332(g)) for the purpose of preparing this report and also for the purpose of assisting the public in the filing and inspection of documents and also to make the report more readily accessible to the public through the Commission's Web site.
Any submissions that contain confidential business information (CBI) must also conform to the requirements of section 201.6 of the
By order of the Commission.
Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), the United States hereby publishes below the comment received on the proposed Final Judgment in
Copies of the comment and the United States' Response are available for inspection at the Department of Justice Antitrust Division, 450 Fifth Street NW., Suite 1010, Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202-514-2481), on the Department of Justice's Web site at
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND STATE OF NEW YORK,
Pursuant to the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h) (“Tunney Act”), the United States hereby files the single public comment received concerning the proposed Final Judgment in this case and the United States' response to the comment. After careful consideration of the submitted comment, the United States continues to believe that the proposed Final Judgment provides an effective and appropriate remedy for the violations alleged in the Complaint. The United States will move the Court for entry of the proposed Final Judgment after the public comment and this Response have been published in the
On March 17, 2009, Defendants Coach USA, Inc. (through subsidiary International Bus Services, Inc.) and CitySights LLC (through subsidiary City Sights Twin, LLC) formed Twin America, LLC (“Twin America”), a joint venture that combined their hop-on, hop-off bus tour operations in New York City.
Defendants subsequently applied to the federal Surface Transportation Board (“STB”) for approval of the Twin America transaction, which would have conferred antitrust immunity. After more than two years of proceedings, the STB rejected the joint venture as anticompetitive. However, while Defendants ceased operating the nominal interstate service that had formed the basis for the STB's jurisdiction, they continued operating their hop-on, hop-off bus tour operations in New York City.
In December 2012, the United States and the State of New York (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this civil antitrust action, alleging that the formation of Twin America substantially lessened competition in the market for hop-on, hop-off bus tours in New York City in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, and also violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, Section 340 of the Donnelly Act, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 340, and Section 63(12) of the New York Executive Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 63(12). The Complaint sought to remedy the harm to competition and disgorge the ill-gotten gains Defendants had obtained from operating Twin America in violation of the antitrust laws.
In December 2014, the parties adjourned a February 2015 trial date to facilitate settlement discussions. These discussions culminated in the proposed Final Judgment, which was filed on March 16, 2015 (Dkt. No. 127-1).
The Complaint alleged that the formation of Twin America had the purpose and effect of creating a monopoly in the hop-on, hop-off bus tour market in New York City. The joint venture eliminated substantial head-to-head competition between Coach and City Sights that had benefitted consumers in the form of discounts, increased product offerings, and service improvements. The joint venture also enabled Defendants to increase hop-on, hop-off bus tour prices by approximately 10%, resulting in immediate and continuing harm to consumers.
The Complaint alleged that entry of new firms into the market or expansion of existing firms was unlikely to counteract the competitive harm caused by the formation and operation of Twin America. According to the Complaint, the primary barrier to entry was the difficulty of obtaining hop-on, hop-off bus stop authorizations from the New York City Department of Transportation (“NYCDOT”). Bus stop authorizations are required by NYCDOT for each location a tour operator wishes to load and unload passengers. Defendants obtained a robust portfolio of bus stop authorizations from NYCDOT several years ago, including authorizations at or very close to virtually all of Manhattan's major tourist attractions. Recent entrants, by contrast, were consistently unable to obtain competitive bus stop authorizations from NYCDOT at top tourist attractions because NYCDOT allocated such authorizations on a “first come, first served” basis and most competitive bus stop locations were already at capacity or otherwise unavailable. As a result, more than five years after Twin America's formation, the joint venture still dominated the market and Defendants had sustained their anticompetitive price increases.
The proposed Final Judgment addresses the harm alleged in the Complaint by requiring Twin America to divest all of City Sights's bus stop authorizations in Manhattan to NYCDOT, the city agency charged with managing bus stop authorizations. The divestiture significantly eases the primary entry barrier alleged in the Complaint by increasing NYCDOT's inventory of bus stops, including for the locations most sought by recent entrants. City Sights's set of approximately 50 bus stops includes highly-coveted stops surrounding key tourist attractions such as Times Square, the Empire State Building, and Battery Park that are critical to operating a competitive hop-on, hop-off bus tour. The proposed Final Judgment also prohibits Defendants from applying for or obtaining any bus stop authorizations for hop-on, hop-off bus tours at the locations of the divested City Sights bus stop authorizations for five years, subject to limited exceptions. In compliance with the proposed Final Judgment, Defendants relinquished the City Sights bus stop authorizations to NYCDOT on April 30, 2015.
The proposed Final Judgment also requires Defendants to pay $7.5 million in disgorgement to the United States and State of New York, which is on top
The Tunney Act requires that proposed consent judgments in antitrust cases brought by the United States be subject to a 60-day public comment period, after which the court shall determine whether entry of the proposed Final Judgment “is in the public interest.” 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1);
(A) the competitive impact of such judgment, including termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and modification, duration of relief sought, anticipated effects of alternative remedies actually considered, whether its terms are ambiguous, and any other competitive considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such judgment that the court deems necessary to a determination of whether the consent judgment is in the public interest; and
(B) the impact of entry of such judgment upon competition in the relevant market or markets, upon the public generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial.
In considering these statutory factors, the court's inquiry is necessarily a limited one.
“The role of the court is not to determine whether the decree results in the array of rights and liabilities `that will
In determining whether a proposed settlement is in the public interest, “the court should be `deferential to the government's predictions as to the effect of the proposed remedies.' ”
A court “is not permitted to reject the proposed remedies merely because the court believes other remedies are preferable.”
The relevant inquiry “is whether the Government has established an ample `factual foundation for [its] decisions such that its conclusions regarding the proposed settlement are reasonable.' ”
In its 2004 amendments to the Tunney Act,
The United States received one public comment, from Taxi Tours, Inc., doing business as BigBus (“Big Bus”). Big Bus entered the New York City hop-on, hop-off bus tour market in 2014 by acquiring an existing player, Big Taxi. The comment makes four principal points: (1) There should be additional remedies to facilitate competitors' ticket sales; (2) there should be a more specific process governing the allocation of bus stop authorizations; (3) the judgment should apply to Defendants' future affiliated
Big Bus's comment asserts that Defendants prevent competitors from selling tickets for hop-on, hop-off bus tours at or near certain key tourist attractions and proposes that the settlement be amended to ensure equal access to vendors to market and sell tickets from Defendants' competitors. Big Bus also expresses concerns regarding the conduct of City Experts, an affiliate of Defendants that offers tourists a variety of tours and attractions from concierge desks it operates at certain New York City hotels. Big Bus contends that because City Experts sells Defendants' hop-on, hop-off bus tours as part of its bundled tourism packages but not the hop-on, hop-off bus tours of Defendants' competitors, it “prevents the Defendants' competitors from effectively competing at the hotel and retail level.” Big Bus also complains that Twin America's employees prevent Big Bus staff from selling tickets by verbally and physically attacking them.
Pursuant to the Tunney Act, review of a proposed Final Judgment is limited to the relationship of the remedy to the violations alleged in the Complaint.
The Complaint did not allege that the conduct of Defendants' street sellers, its City Experts affiliate, or Defendants' sales practices otherwise served as a meaningful barrier to competition in the hop-on, hop-off bus tour market. Nor did the Complaint allege that the formation of the joint venture had an impact on these practices. Thus, the suggested additional provisions are unnecessary to address the competitive harm set forth in the Complaint.
Big Bus argues that the proposed settlement should establish certain rules and processes related to the allocation and use of hop-on, hop-off bus stops. First, Big Bus asserts that the Final Judgment “should define a fair and monitored process of reassignment/reallocation of the divested [City Sights bus stop] authorizations to ensure that all competitors in the relevant market have an equal opportunity to apply for the divested stop authorizations.” Big Bus also claims that the Final Judgment should address how hop-on, hop-off bus stop authorizations would be handled in the event that Defendants acquired an existing hop-on, hop-off bus tour business.
Procedures relating to the assignment and allocation of bus stop authorizations are within the jurisdiction of NYCDOT, the New York City agency charged with regulating and managing bus stops.
Given the established NYCDOT role in bus stop authorizations and allocations, the United States concluded that the facts of this case did not call for the proposed Final Judgment to establish any additional regulations or processes relating to the assignment or allocation of bus stop authorizations.
Big Bus's comment raises a concern that two provisions of the proposed Final Judgment—having to do with notification to the government of certain transactions (Section X) and “reacquisition” of stops (Section XII)—would not apply to affiliated entities that Defendants might form after entry of the Final Judgment. Big Bus is incorrect. The proposed Final Judgment applies to Defendant entities as well as their “
Finally, Big Bus argues that Section XIII of the proposed Final Judgment, which provides that the Court retains jurisdiction for ten years to monitor and enforce the terms of the Final Judgment, should also set forth “a process whereby third parties may directly report violations of the Final Judgment by the Defendants.” The United States does not believe this is necessary. Third parties can already report such violations to the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice or the Antitrust Bureau of the New York Attorney General's Office. Plaintiffs will take the appropriate steps to respond to any reported violations, including by applying to the Court to enforce compliance or punish violations pursuant to Section XIII of the proposed Final Judgment.
After carefully reviewing the public comment submitted by Big Bus, the United States has determined that the proposed Final Judgment, as drafted, provides an effective and appropriate remedy for the antitrust violation alleged in the Complaint and is therefore in the public interest. The United States will move this Court to enter the proposed Final Judgment after the public comment and this Response have been published in the
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Notice of Establishment of the Workforce Information Advisory Council and Solicitation of Nominations for Membership.
The Department of Labor (Department) announces the establishment of the Workforce Information Advisory Council (WIAC), invites interested parties to submit nominations for individuals to serve on the WIAC, and announces the procedures for those nominations.
Nominations for individuals to serve on the WIAC must be submitted (postmarked, if sending by mail; submitted electronically; or received, if hand delivered) by October 6, 2015.
You may submit nominations and supporting materials described in this
Kimberly Vitelli, Division of National Programs, Tools, and Technical Assistance, Office of Workforce Investment (address above); (202) 693-3045; or use email address for the WIAC,
Section 15 of the Wagner-Peyser Act, 29 U.S.C. 49
The statute, as amended, requires the Secretary, acting through the Commissioner of Labor Statistics and the Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training, to formally consult at least twice annually with the WIAC to address: (1) Evaluation and improvement of the nationwide workforce and labor market information system established by the Wagner-Peyser Act, and of the statewide systems that comprise the nationwide system, and (2) how the Department and the States will cooperate in the management of those systems. The Secretary, acting through the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), and in consultation with the WIAC and appropriate Federal agencies, must also develop a 2-year plan for management of the system, with subsequent updates every two years thereafter. The statute generally prescribes how the plan is to be developed and implemented, outlines the contents of the plan, and requires the Secretary to submit the plan to designated authorizing committees in the House and Senate.
By law, the Secretary must “seek, review, and evaluate” recommendations from the WIAC, and respond to the recommendations in writing to the WIAC. The WIAC must make written recommendations to the Secretary on the evaluation and improvement of the workforce and labor market information system, including recommendations for the 2-year plan. The 2-year plan, in turn, must describe WIAC recommendations and the extent to which the plan incorporates them.
The Department anticipates that the WIAC will accomplish its objectives by, for example: (1) Studying workforce and labor market information issues; (2) seeking and sharing information on innovative approaches, new technologies, and data to inform employment, skills training, and workforce and economic development decision making and policy; and (3) advising the Secretary on how the workforce and labor market information system can best support workforce development, planning, and program development.
The Wagner-Peyser Act at section 15(d)(2)(B), requires the WIAC to have representative 14 members, appointed by the Secretary, consisting of:
(i) Four members who are representatives of lead State agencies with responsibility for workforce investment activities, or State agencies described in Wagner-Peyser Act section 4 (agency designated or authorized by Governor to cooperate with the Secretary), who have been nominated by such agencies or by a national organization that represents such agencies;
(ii) Four members who are representatives of the State workforce and labor market information directors affiliated with the State agencies responsible for the management and oversight of the workforce and labor market information system as described in Wagner-Peyser Act section 15(e)(2), who have been nominated by the directors;
(iii) One member who is a representative of providers of training services under WIOA section 122 (Identification of Eligible Providers of Training Services);
(iv) One member who is a representative of economic development entities;
(v) One member who is a representative of businesses, who has been nominated by national business organizations or trade associations;
(vi) One member who is a representative of labor organizations, who has been nominated by a national labor federation;
(vii) One member who is a representative of local workforce development boards, who has been nominated by a national organization representing such boards; and
(viii) One member who is a representative of research entities that use workforce and labor market information.
The Secretary must ensure that the membership of the WIAC is geographically diverse, and that no two members appointed under clauses (i), (ii), and (vii), above, represent the same State. Each member will be appointed for a term of three years, except that the initial terms for members may be one, two, or three years in order to establish a rotation in which one-third of the members are selected each year. The Secretary will not appoint a member for any more than two consecutive terms. Any member whom the Secretary appoints to fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration of the predecessor's term will be appointed only for the remainder of that term. Members of the WIAC will serve on a voluntary and generally uncompensated basis, but will be reimbursed for travel expenses to attend WIAC meetings, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by the Federal travel regulations.
Of the seven types of members listed above and at section 15(d)(2), the Secretary may consider all nominations for three types, but for the other four, the Secretary may only appoint individuals nominated by particular organizations. Type (i) requires nomination from “lead State agencies with responsibility for workforce investment activities” and type (ii) requires nomination from “State workforce and labor market information directors.” Type (v) requires nomination by national business organizations or trade associations and type (vi) requires nomination by a national labor federation. But for types (iii), (iv), and (vii), any interested person or organization may nominate one or more qualified individuals for membership. If you would like to nominate an individual or yourself for appointment to the WIAC, please submit, to one of the addresses listed below, the following information:
• A copy of the nominee's biographical information and resume;
• A cover letter that provides your reason(s) for nominating the individual, the constituency area that they represent (as outlined above in the WIAC membership identification discussion), and their particular expertise for contributing to the national policy discussion on: (1) The evaluation and improvement of the nationwide workforce and labor market information system and statewide systems that comprise the nationwide system, and (2) how the Department and the States will cooperate in the management of those systems, including programs that produce employment-related statistics and State and local workforce and labor market information; and
• Contact information for the nominee (name, title, business address, business phone, fax number, and business email address).
In addition, the cover letter must state that the nomination is being made in response to this
Pursuant to the Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 49
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Statement of Recovery Forms,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before September 8, 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-OWCP, 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:
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for revisions to the Statement of Recovery Forms information collection (Forms CA-1108 and CA-1122). The forms are used to obtain information about amounts received from a final judgments in litigation, or a settlement of the litigation, brought against a third party who is liable for damages due to a Federal employee comprehensive work-related injury. A Federal employee can sustain a work-related injury, for which he or she is eligible for compensation under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA), under circumstances that also create a legal liability for some third party to pay damages for the same injury. When this occurs, the FECA authorizes the Secretary of Labor either to require the employee to assign his or her right of action to the United States or to prosecute the action.
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.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities.
Notice of meetings.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given that one meeting of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held by teleconference.
All meetings are Eastern time and ending times are approximate:
National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20506.
Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506;
The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of February 15, 2012, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code.
The National Science Board, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of meetings for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:
August 12, 2015 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. and August 13, 2015 from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. (EDT).
These meetings will be held at the National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1235, Arlington, VA 22230. All visitors must contact the Board Office (call 703-292-7000 or send an email message to
Public meetings and public portions of meetings will be webcast. To view the meetings, go to
Please refer to the National Science Board Web site for additional information. Meeting information and schedule updates (time, place, subject matter or status of meeting) may be found at
Ron Campbell,
Nadine Lymn,
Portions open; portions closed.
2:00 p.m.
9:30 a.m., Tuesday, August 11, 2015.
NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20594.
The one item is open to the public.
8717—Highway Accident Report: Multivehicle Work Zone Crash on Interstate 95, Cranbury, New Jersey, June 7, 2014.
Telephone: (202) 314-6100.
The press and public may enter the NTSB Conference Center one hour prior to the meeting for set up and seating.
Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Rochelle Hall at (202) 314-6305 or by email at
The public may view the meeting via a live or archived webcast by accessing a link under “News & Events” on the NTSB home page at
Schedule updates, including weather-related cancellations, are also available at
Candi Bing at (202) 314-6403 or by email at
Keith Holloway (202) 314-6100 or by email at
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; o